Original source · versioned page text
1-22276-01 site plan
Plans and drawings
This document appears to be plans or drawings. Its page text below holds only the words printed on the drawings, without the drawings themselves, so it may be jumbled or hard to follow. To see the plans as drawn, choose Original above or download the file (both need you to log in).
Log in to see the plans as drawnGEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION PROJECT NO. 1-22276 FEBRUARY, 2020 WESSEL PETROLEUM PTY LTD PROPOSED SERVICE STATION RECONSTRUCTION 52-54 MARY STREET AND WEYBA ROAD, NOOSAVILLE OFFICES IN BRISBANE AND GOLD COAST
See the original
The page text is free to read. Viewing or downloading an original file needs an account.
Log in to see the originalLog in to download the original file
Large file: the download may take up to a minute.
Searchable page text hides email addresses. Original files are unchanged and may show email addresses.
Full text of pages 2 to 52 (of 69)
Page 2
Soil Surveys Engineering Pty Limited
A.B.N. 70 054 043 631
www.soilsurveys.com.au
Ph +617 3369 6000
PO Box 317, Paddington, QLD, 4064, Australia
[email protected]
Brisbane
Level 2, 19 Finchley Street, Milton, QLD, 4064, Australia
Gold Coast
Unit 8, 140 Millaroo Drive, Helensvale, QLD, Australia
Document Information
Project Number 1-22276
-
Proposed Service Station
Document Title GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION
Reconstruction
Site Address 52-54 Mary Street and Weyba Road, Noosaville
Client Wessel Petroleum Pty Ltd
File ref 1-22276, 2020-02-28, BR VER 2
Author Gregory Gray
Review
Approved for Issue
Ver No. Document Type Reviewed By
Name Date
1 Draft Cameron Johnson Greg Gray 27/03/2020
2 Final Cameron Johnson Greg Gray 30/03/2020
Distribution List
Ver
Organisation Contact Email Date Sent
No.
1 Wessel Petroleum Pty Ltd Djorde Belosevic [email protected] 27/03/2020
1 ACOR Consultants Shane Suffolk [email protected] 27/03/2020
2 Wessel Petroleum Pty Ltd Djorde Belosevic [email protected] 30//03/2020
2 ACOR Consultants Shane Suffolk [email protected] 30/03/2020
Page 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................. 1
2.0 SCOPE OF GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ...................................................... 1
3.0 PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ......................................................................... 2
4.0 GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION ................................................................ 3
4.1 Site Description ...................................................................................................... 3
4.2 Field Investigation .................................................................................................. 7
4.3 Laboratory Testing ................................................................................................. 8
4.3.1 Geotechnical Testing ...................................................................................................... 8
4.3.2 Acid Sulfate Soils Testing ............................................................................................... 8
5.0 GEOTECHNICAL MODEL ............................................................................. 10
5.1 Subsurface Profile ................................................................................................ 10
5.2 Groundwater ......................................................................................................... 12
6.0 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT ................................................................. 13
6.1 General .................................................................................................................. 13
6.2 Civil Works ............................................................................................................ 13
6.2.1 General.......................................................................................................................... 13
6.2.2 Trafficability ................................................................................................................... 14
6.2.3 Dewatering - Construction............................................................................................. 15
6.2.4 Excavation Characteristics ............................................................................................ 15
6.2.5 Site Preparation Procedures ......................................................................................... 16
6.2.6 Material Usage and Fill ................................................................................................. 17
6.2.7 Compaction Procedures and Specifications ................................................................. 18
6.2.8 Temporary Batters......................................................................................................... 20
6.3 Site Classification ................................................................................................. 21
6.3.1 General.......................................................................................................................... 21
6.4 Building Foundation System ............................................................................... 22
6.4.1 Design Considerations .................................................................................................. 22
6.4.2 High Level Footings ...................................................................................................... 22
6.4.3 Deep Foundations ......................................................................................................... 23
6.4.4 Construction Recommendations ................................................................................... 24
6.4.5 Slab On Ground ............................................................................................................ 26
6.5 Temporary Retention ........................................................................................... 26
6.6 Retaining Wall ....................................................................................................... 28
6.6.1 General.......................................................................................................................... 28
6.6.2 Pressure Distribution ..................................................................................................... 28
6.6.3 Resistance to Lateral Forces ........................................................................................ 30
6.6.4 Construction Considerations ......................................................................................... 30
6.7 Pavements ............................................................................................................. 31
6.8 Site Management .................................................................................................. 32
7.0 CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION .................................................................... 32
Page 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
8.0 EARTHQUAKE SITE CLASSIFICATION ...................................................... 33
9.0 LIMITATIONS ................................................................................................ 33
Appendices
Appendix A
Notes Relating to this report
Appendix B
Borehole Record Sheets
Appendix C
Laboratory Test Certificates
Appendix D
Site Plan
Appendix E
Acid Sulfate Soils Management Plan
Page 5
Project No. 1-22276 Page | 1
February, 2020
Ref: 1-22276, 2020-02-28, BR VER 2
Wessel Petroleum Pty Ltd – GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION - Proposed Service Station Reconstruction, 52-54 Mary Street and Weyba Road,
Noosaville
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of the geotechnical investigation carried out by Soil Surveys
Engineering Pty Limited for the Proposed Service Station Reconstruction at 52-54 Mary Street
and Weyba Road, Noosaville.
The objectives of this investigation were to assess subsurface conditions at the site in
accordance with the Scope of Services detailed in Section 2.0.
This study was commissioned by Djorde Belosevic on the 20th February, 2020 on behalf of
Wessel Petroleum Pty Ltd.
2.0 SCOPE OF GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES
The scope of geotechnical services provided by Soil Surveys Engineering Pty Limited was
directed towards evaluating the following items, as detailed in our proposal, 1-22276, 2020-01-
08, PR VER 1 dated 9th January, 2020:-
Investigation of the subsurface profile at the proposed structure locations and the
pavement areas by drilling, sampling and insitu testing with six boreholes (BH’s 1 to 6
inclusive), with Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP’s) testing. These boreholes were
sampled by and for the project’s environmental consult Prensa Pty Ltd.
An additional three boreholes (BH’s 3, 8 and 9) were drilled for environmental sampling
as directed by Prensa Pty Ltd.
Laboratory testing on selected samples to assess the geotechnical properties of the
subsurface materials.
Geotechnical engineering analysis of the site investigation and laboratory test results to
evaluate:-
o Earthworks recommendations
- trafficability
- excavatability
- stripping depths
- material usage
- compaction standards
- fill/cut batter slope stability
o Assessment of and recommendations of Acid Sulfate soils (ASS/PASS).
This assessment is presented in Appendix E of this report.
o Foundation recommendations
- recommended foundation type
- design strength parameters
- site classification
- predicted ground movement
o Temporary retention system options
o Construction recommendations
o Pavement recommendations
o Site management recommendations
SOIL SURVEYS
Page 6
Project No. 1
1-22276 Page | 2
February, 20
020
Ref: 1-22276,
6, 2020-02-28, BR VE
ER 2
Wessel Petrooleum Pty Ltd – GE
EOTECHNICAL INVE
ESTIGATION - Propo
osed Service Statio
on Reconstruction, 52-54 Mary Street aand Weyba Road,
Noosaville
3.0 P
PROPOSED
D DEVELO
OPMENT
It is und
derstood that the proposed re-devvelopment is to consis st of the demmolition of the
t existing g
BP Serrvice Stationn and the adjacent
a retaail site (Bud
dget Rentall). A new seervice statio
on will then
n
be consstructed, exxtending ove
er both sitess.
It is und
derstood tha
at the propo
osed re-devvelopment is
s to consist of:-
Service sta
ation building, incorpora
ating retail shop,
s back of house, ooffice and am
menities
areas
ea
Refuse are
Canopy witth associate
ed bowsers , etc.
Undergroun
nd fuel tank
ks and asso
ociated serv
vices
Auxiliary pits, tanks, se
ervices, sig ns, etc.
Extensive pavement
p areas
a
Landscapin
ng
Structurral loads would
w not be expecte
ed to exceed standarrd residentiial single storey
s type
e
construction loads.
Earthwoorks are unknown,
u however pro
oposed lev
vels are ex
xpected to approxima
ate existing
g
surface
e levels.
Detailed
d excavatio
ons of the orrder of 4.0m
m to 4.5m arre expected
d for the undderground tanks.
t
Refer to
o Figure 1 fo
or a plan off the propossed develop
pment.
FIGU
URE 1 - PR OPOSED REDEVELO
R OPMENT
SO
OIL SUR
RVEYS
Page 7
Project No. 1
1-22276 Page | 3
February, 20
020
Ref: 1-22276,
6, 2020-02-28, BR VE
ER 2
Wessel Petrooleum Pty Ltd – GE
EOTECHNICAL INVE
ESTIGATION - Propo
osed Service Statio
on Reconstruction, 52-54 Mary Street aand Weyba Road,
Noosaville
4.0 G
GEOTECHN
NICAL INV
VESTIGAT
TION
4.1 Site Descrription
oposed rede
The pro evelopmentt site encom
mpasses two
o allotments
s
No 54 MMary Streett: an existing operatioonal BP Serrvice Station
n, boundedd by Mark Street
S to the
e
south a
and Weyba Road to the east. Th e existing service
s station consistss of a main two storeyy
shop annd office bu
uilding, adjo
oining workkshop, stora
age and canopy structtures and surrounding
s g
pavemeents (concrrete and bitumen), to ogether with
h limited laandscaped areas. The existing g
undergrround fuel tanks
t are located in the
e south eastern sectionn of the sitee.
Note: K
Keyser Islan
nd Conserv
vation Park is situated some 5m or
o so from thhe eastern side of thiss
site.
No 52 MMary Streett: An existin
ng vehicle rrental business with a single
s storeey office buiilding in the
e
north w
western secttion and rigid pavemennt surround.
The sitee location, aerial
a view (Google) a nd photogra
aphs of typical site connditions are
e presented
d
in Plate
es 1 and 2 and
a Photogrraphs 1 to 6 6.
PLATE
E 1 – SITE LOCATION
L
SO
OIL SUR
RVEYS
Page 8
Project No. 1
1-22276 Page | 4
February, 20
020
Ref: 1-22276,
6, 2020-02-28, BR VE
ER 2
Wessel Petrooleum Pty Ltd – GE
EOTECHNICAL INVE
ESTIGATION - Propo
osed Service Statio
on Reconstruction, 52-54 Mary Street aand Weyba Road,
Noosaville
PLAT
TE 2 – AERIIAL VIEW
TOGRAPH 1 – BH01
PHOT
SO
OIL SUR
RVEYS
Page 9
Project No. 1
1-22276 Page | 5
February, 20
020
Ref: 1-22276,
6, 2020-02-28, BR VE
ER 2
Wessel Petrooleum Pty Ltd – GE
EOTECHNICAL INVE
ESTIGATION - Propo
osed Service Statio
on Reconstruction, 52-54 Mary Street aand Weyba Road,
Noosaville
PHOT
TOGRAPH 2 – BH02
PHOT
TOGRAPH 3 – BH03
SO
OIL SUR
RVEYS
Page 10
Project No. 1
1-22276 Page | 6
February, 20
020
Ref: 1-22276,
6, 2020-02-28, BR VE
ER 2
Wessel Petrooleum Pty Ltd – GE
EOTECHNICAL INVE
ESTIGATION - Propo
osed Service Statio
on Reconstruction, 52-54 Mary Street aand Weyba Road,
Noosaville
PHOT
TOGRAPH 4 – BH04
PHOT
TOGRAPH 5 – BH05
SO
OIL SUR
RVEYS
Page 11
Project No. 1
1-22276 Page | 7
February, 20
020
Ref: 1-22276,
6, 2020-02-28, BR VE
ER 2
Wessel Petrooleum Pty Ltd – GE
EOTECHNICAL INVE
ESTIGATION - Propo
osed Service Statio
on Reconstruction, 52-54 Mary Street aand Weyba Road,
Noosaville
PHOT
TOGRAPH 6 – BH06
4.2 Field Inves
stigation
To provvide the required asses
ssments, the on was carriied out:-
e following investigatio
Setting out the test ho
ole locationss for GPS co-ordinates
c s derived froom supplied
d plans and
d
electronic data.
d Borehholes 1 to 6 6, inclusive were locatted by Soil Surveys Engineering,,
with BH7, BH8 and BH9 B locatio ns nominatted by the project envvironmental consultantt
Prensa Ptyy Ltd.
Clearing th he test holle locationss for underground se
ervices usinng a certifiied service
e
locator, prio
or to drilling
g.
Coring the surface concrete pave ement at a number of locations ((BH’s 1, 7, 8 and 9) to
o
allow penettration into the subsurfface soils.
Drilling, log
gging, insitu
u testing an
nd sampling g of nine bo oreholes ovver the site e, to depthss
from 3.0m to 6.0m, us sing an EVH H1750 drilling rig. Sammples of reepresentativ ve materialss
were retrievved from th he boreholees 1 to 6 inc
clusive for geotechnica
g al testing, as
a required,,
with sample es taken by y Prensa forr environmeental testing
g in BH’s 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9.
Dynamic co
one penetro
ometer testss adjacent to
t each bore
ehole.
The claassification of soils in the
t field is ssubjective, based on thet experie nce and jud dgement off
the geootechnical drilling
d technnician and some varia ations in the
e soil descrription, fromm the actuall
materiaal type may occur. In order
o to red uce any inc
consistencie es which m may have oc ccurred, the
e
field descriptions have
h been corrected,
c w
where appro opriate, to re
eflect the avvailable laboratory testt
results.
SO
OIL SUR
RVEYS
Page 12
Project No. 1-22276 Page | 8
February, 2020
Ref: 1-22276, 2020-02-28, BR VER 2
Wessel Petroleum Pty Ltd – GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION - Proposed Service Station Reconstruction, 52-54 Mary Street and Weyba Road,
Noosaville
The soil classification descriptions, field and laboratory testing were carried out in general
accordance with AS 1726–2017 ‘Geotechnical Site Investigations’.
A description of the investigation method, together with the borehole records and a site plan
showing the location of the boreholes are included in the Appendices. Borehole coordinates
were recorded using a hand held GPS device, with accuracy consistent with such devices.
4.3 Laboratory Testing
Laboratory testing was carried out on selected samples retrieved from the site investigation
program for geotechnical and acid sulfate soil requirements.
4.3.1 Geotechnical Testing
The laboratory testing was carried out in general accordance with AS 1289 – ‘Methods of
Testing Soils for Engineering Purposes’.
Laboratory testing included:-
Particle Size Distribution (PSD) - to assess material quality parameters.
California Bearing Ratio (CBR) - to assess the subgrade characteristics of the
subsurface material under soaked conditions.
The results of the laboratory testing are given in Appendix C and summarised in Table 1A.
TABLE 1A GEOTECHNICAL LABORATORY TEST RESULTS
Borehole No 4 4 5
Depth (m) 0.8 – 1.2 0.15 – 0.50 0.8 – 1.2
Sandy GRAVEL
Classification Silty SAND (SM) SAND (SP)
(GP
Coarse Grained (%) - - -
Sand Content Medium Grained (%) 8 - 11
Fine Grained (%) 77 - 84
Fines Content (%) 15 - 5
3
Maximum Dry Density (t/m ) - 1.99 -
Optimum Moisture Content (%) - 10.3 -
CBR - 50 -
Notes:-
1. Depth in metres below surface level at date of drilling
4.3.2 Acid Sulfate Soils Testing
A total of 42 soil samples (on a basis of sampling from the surface or beneath the pavement
surfacing at depth intervals of 0.25m to a depth of at least 1.0m below the proposed excavation
levels in two boreholes – BH’1 and BH6) were submitted for a staged acid sulfate testing
program.
SOIL SURVEYS
Page 13
Project No. 1-22276 Page | 9
February, 2020
Ref: 1-22276, 2020-02-28, BR VER 2
Wessel Petroleum Pty Ltd – GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION - Proposed Service Station Reconstruction, 52-54 Mary Street and Weyba Road,
Noosaville
Preliminary Screening Tests - Qualitative
Testing was carried out on representative soil samples recovered from the boreholes to provide
preliminary qualitative assessment of the presence of acid sulfate soils (ASS). This testing was
in the form of assessing the pH of the sample before and following oxidation with 30% hydrogen
peroxide (H2O2). This test involved measuring a known quantity of soil sample from a particular
depth in the strata; the field pH (pHF) of the sample was then measured and recorded.
Following this, a uniform volume of hydrogen peroxide was then added to the sample. Each
sample was left to react / oxidise for 1 hour and the pH following oxidation (pHFOX) was
recorded.
This is a quick, qualitative assessment of the potential acidity of the soil. Reactivity to
hydrochloric acid (HCI) was also assessed as a qualitative determination of the neutralising
carbonate content including calcium carbonate (shells) within the soil. The results of these
screening tests were used as an additional tool in determining which soil samples should be
further assessed by quantitative laboratory testing.
Laboratory test results are summarised in Table 1B with certificates containing qualitative test
results of pHF and pHFOX are attached.
TABLE 1B QUALITATIVE SCREENING TEST RESULTS
Borehole No. Depth Range (m) pHf pHfox
0.11 – 1.75 5.1 – 6.6 4.3 – 6.2
1 1.75 – 3.20 4.9 – 5.5 1.6 – 2.7
3.20 – 4.50 5.5 – 5.6 4.3 – 5.4
0.00 – 1.50 5.3 – 7.7 5.3 – 6..7
6 1.50 – 2.25 6.4 – 6.6 2.6 – 3.7
2.20 – 6.00 6.0 – 6.5 4.6 – 5.9
Where:
Depths in metres below surface level at date of drilling
pHf = pH of sample/s taken from field
pHfox = pH of sample/s following oxidation
Quantitative Tests
Based upon the results of the screening tests, samples were selected for quantitative analyses,
SCr (Chromium Reducible Sulfur) and TAA (Total Actual Acidity), in accordance with
appropriate laboratory procedures. The TAA is a measure of the soils existing acidity prior to
oxidation of sulfidic material
Table 1C presents a summary of quantitative test results. Laboratory test certificates are
attached.
SOIL SURVEYS
Page 14
Project No. 1
1-22276 Page | 10
February, 20
020
Ref: 1-22276,
6, 2020-02-28, BR VE
ER 2
Wessel Petrooleum Pty Ltd – GE
EOTECHNICAL INVE
ESTIGATION - Propo
osed Service Statio
on Reconstruction, 52-54 Mary Street aand Weyba Road,
Noosaville
TABLE
E 1C QUAANTITATIV VE TEST RE ESULTS
Depth Range
R Nett Acidity
Borehhole No. T
TAA (mol. H+/t) SC
Cr (mol. H+//t)
(m
m) (mool. H+/t)
0.11 – 0.70 1 – 10 3 3 – 12
1.00 – 1.20 31 2 33
1
1.50 – 3.75 1-12 3 – 103 4 – 115
4.00 – 4.25 4 32 36
0.00 – 1.00 13 – 255 3.7 20 – 28
6 1.75 – 3.00 5 – 28 74 – 103 102 – 108
4.25 – 4.50 1–5 33 - 34 34
3 - 39
Where:
Depths in metres
m below surface leevel at datee of drilling
TAA = Titraatable Actuaal Acidity
SCr = Chro omium Redu ucable Sulfa ar
All S-NAS (Retained
( Acidity)
A ults not appropriate
resu
5.0 G
GEOTECHN
NICAL MO
ODEL
5.1 Subsurfac
ce Profile
The boreholes were positione ed in existin
ng pavemen
nt areas (BH’s 1, 2, 3,, 5, 7, 8 and 9) and in
n
garden beds (BH’ss 4 and 6). Refer
R to Pla
ate 3.
PLATE 3
SO
OIL SUR
RVEYS
Page 15
Project No. 1-22276 Page | 11
February, 2020
Ref: 1-22276, 2020-02-28, BR VER 2
Wessel Petroleum Pty Ltd – GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION - Proposed Service Station Reconstruction, 52-54 Mary Street and Weyba Road,
Noosaville
Subsurface conditions encountered can be broadly grouped into the following material types:-
Fill
Pavement Formation:- Concrete slabs from 110mm to 160mm thick in BH’s 1, 7, 8 and
9) over a very loose to loose bedding sand and bitumen wearing surface from 40mm to
70mm thick in BH’s 2, 3 and 5 over a dense Sandy GRAVEL layer (70mm to 180mm
thick). A lower level bitumen layer (90mm thick) was encountered beneath the
pavement gravel in BH5 (likely to represent the old bitumen pavement that was filled
over).
General Fill:- Encountered as very loose to loose and some medium dense Silty SAND /
SANDS and Gravelly SANDS. A zone of concrete pieces was noted in BH6 from 0.3m
to 0.4m depth (possibly the old concrete pavement that had been broken up and filled
over). The fill material extended to depths of between 0.3m and 0.6m in all boreholes,
except BH9 where the loose to medium dense Silty SAND fill appeared to extend to
2.6m depth (possibly the underground tank backfill).
Natural Soils
The typical natural profile consisted of an upper zone of medium dense Silty SAND (SM)
and SAND (SP) material, with some loose sandy soil (BH’s 1 and 6). This upper zone
extended to depths of between 2.4m and 3.1m where a dense and dense to very dense
Silty SAND (SM) strata was intersected that could be described as indurated. A medium
dense to dense consistency within this layer was noted in BH’s 6 and 7.
The indurated sands extended to the termination depths of BH’s 2, 3 and 4 and were
underlain by very stiff CLAYS (CI-CH/CH) in BH’s 1, 5 and 9 and medium dense and
dense sandy strata in BH’s 6, 7, 8 and 9.
A summary of the subsurface profile is presented in Table 2.
SOIL SURVEYS
Page 16
Project No. 1-22276 Page | 12
February, 2020
Ref: 1-22276, 2020-02-28, BR VER 2
Wessel Petroleum Pty Ltd – GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION - Proposed Service Station Reconstruction, 52-54 Mary Street and Weyba Road,
Noosaville
TABLE 2 SUMMARY OF THE SUBSURFACE PROFILE
Natural
CLAYS
Natural SANDS (SM/SP)
(CL-
Pavement
BH Concrete Bitumen Fill CI/CH) TD GW
Gravel
No. dense -
med. very
loose very
dense stiff
dense
(mm) (mm) (mm) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m) (m)
3.20-
1 110 NE NE 0.11-0.30 NE 0.30-3.20 4.00-TD 4.50 1.2
4.00
2 NE 60 70 0.13-0.50 NE 0.50-2.40 2.40-TD NE 3.00 1.2
3 NE 70 180 0.25-0.60 NE 0.60-3.10 3.10-TD NE 4.00 1.2
0.50-
4 NE NE NE 0.0-0.50 0.80-2.40 2.40-TD NE 3.00 1.2
0.80
40 + 90 2.50-
5 NE 90 (2) 0.22-0.60 NE 0.60-2.50 4.10-TD 4.50 1.2
(5) 4.10
0.40- 1.20-TD
6 NE NE NE 0.0-0.40 (7) NE NE 6.00 1.2
1.20 (8)
0.40-2.40
2.40-
3.50-4.70
7 160 NE NE 0.16-0.40 NE 3.50 NE 6.00 1.2
(9)
5.50-TD
4.70-5.50
0.60-2.40
3.50-
8 150 NE NE 0.16-0.60 NE 4.30-TD NE 6.00 1.7
4.30
(9)
2.60- 4.50-
9 130 NE NE 0.13-2.60 NE 5.40-TD 6.00 1.3
4.50 5.40
NOTES
1. Depth in metres below surface level at date of drilling.
2. NE = Not Encountered.
3. TD = Termination Depth.
4. GW = Depth Groundwater noted
5. 40mm bitumen layer over 90mm Sandy GRAVEL layer over 90mm bitumen layer (old surface) in
BH5.
6. Broken concrete pieces from 0.3m to 0.4m in BH6.
7. Medium dense to dense Zone from 2.7m – 4.7m in BH6.
8. Medium dense to dense Zone from 3.5m – 4.7m in BH7.
9. Sandy Clay (CL-CI) bands within Silty SAND (SM) layer from 4.3m – 4.7m in BH8
5.2 Groundwater
Groundwater was encountered in all of the open hole drilled borings at the time of the
investigation at depths of between 1.2m and 1.7m (refer Table 2).
It could also be expected to vary with climatic changes (rainfall) and tidal influences.
Groundwater could also be encountered as seepage along and/or trapped waters in and
adjacent to the many service lines, pits, tanks, etc. associated with the existing service station
centre.
SOIL SURVEYS
Page 17
Project No. 1-22276 Page | 13
February, 2020
Ref: 1-22276, 2020-02-28, BR VER 2
Wessel Petroleum Pty Ltd – GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION - Proposed Service Station Reconstruction, 52-54 Mary Street and Weyba Road,
Noosaville
6.0 GEOTECHNICAL ASSESSMENT
6.1 General
This section of the report includes evaluation of the following:-
Civil Works, including Trafficability & Earthworks
Foundations
Retaining Walls
Pavements
Site Management
The presence of the weak (loose) soils and high water table will impact on the proposed
foundation system, pavements and earthworks operations and must be considered in the
design and construction phases of the redevelopment.
Demolition and Clearing Activities
Extreme care should be exercised during the demolition/clearing phase to ensure that
excessive subgrade disturbance is not caused during removal of existing structures,
pavements, vegetation, services, etc.
Working Platforms For Tracked Plant and Heavy Construction Vehicles
The scope of Soil Surveys Engineering’s study DOES NOT include the design of a working
platform for heavy construction vehicles or heavy tracked plant.
Detailed design of a working platform should be carried out considering the operation of actual
machinery proposed to be used. This is particularly important when considering the use of
heavy piling rigs and heavy cranes - the piling/crane contractor should be consulted regarding
their requirements.
6.2 Civil Works
6.2.1 General
It is understood that following demolition and clearing works the proposed bulk earthworks will
consist of minor (<0.5m depth/height) cut and fills to construct a building platform. Detailed
excavations for footings, services, pits, tanks, etc could be expected to be to depth, with
excavations for the underground fuel tanks and associated services taken to depths of the order
of 4.5m. Deeper excavations may be required for removal of contaminated soils, if present.
Note: The upper level sandy soils, in particular the very loose to loose material, will
cause problems with trafficability/workability should this material be or become wet prior
to or during construction. In general, the sandy soils have been described as silty sand
with some sand. Geotechnical experience on sites with similar profiles, that with similar
sandy soils that contain a significant amount of silt fines, the “re wetting” of the soil to
optimum may be difficult to achieve. The option of full removal of the weak material
prior to filling may need to be considered and should be assessed at the time of
construction.
SOIL SURVEYS
Page 18
Project No. 1-22276 Page | 14
February, 2020
Ref: 1-22276, 2020-02-28, BR VER 2
Wessel Petroleum Pty Ltd – GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION - Proposed Service Station Reconstruction, 52-54 Mary Street and Weyba Road,
Noosaville
Earthwork procedures should be carried out in a responsible manner in accordance with
AS 3798-2007 'Guidelines on Earthworks for Commercial and Residential Developments'.
For the conditions encountered on site, the following is recommended:-
Treatment of existing fill and loose natural sandy soils to create a controlled fill platform
i.e. compaction of existing fill insitu where possible along with partial or complete
removal as required.
Placement of imported fill in a controlled manner.
Provided existing fill is adequately treated and imported fill is of low plasticity and
placed/compacted under controlled conditions and is appropriately certified by a
Registered Engineer, a conventional high level foundation system could be adopted.
It is recommended that the earthworks contractors make themselves familiar with site
conditions.
6.2.2 Trafficability
At the time of the field investigation, trafficing problems were not encountered over the current
developed site.
However, following demolition and clearing some trafficking problems could arise for earthworks
and construction machinery from:-
Weakening of the upper level soils during and after periods of rainfall and repetitive
traffic.
Disturbance of the upper level soil fabric with removal of underground elements, e.g.
services, footings and ground covers, e.g. slabs, pavements, vegetation, etc.
It is recommended that after demolition, clearing, etc., the exposed surface in the construction
area be proof rolled (where appropriate) to assist in identifying weak areas and to improve
trafficability for light weight construction vehicles. Soil Surveys Engineering can assist in
identifying weak areas and the provision of remedial/treatment measures to improve
trafficability.
An important aspect of maintaining trafficability is seepage/drainage control, along with
construction practices appropriate for site conditions. It should be ensured that runoff is diverted
away from the construction area to prevent ponding of water
Allocation and/or construction of dedicated haulage tracks and working platforms, incorporating
appropriate subgrade bridging, may be required to control site traffic, depending on climatic and
site conditions prior to and during construction works.
Operation of construction plant near batters, trenches, pits, etc. must be carefully controlled.
Appropriate set-back distances for large plant (e.g. piling rigs) will need to be established - this
matter should be referred to the piling contractor.
The contractors should fully inform themselves of the ground conditions, on site, prior to
commencement of earthworks. This requirement should be explicit in any earthworks
specifications or contract.
SOIL SURVEYS
Page 19
Project No. 1-22276 Page | 15
February, 2020
Ref: 1-22276, 2020-02-28, BR VER 2
Wessel Petroleum Pty Ltd – GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION - Proposed Service Station Reconstruction, 52-54 Mary Street and Weyba Road,
Noosaville
Demolition and Clearing Activities
Extreme care should be exercised during the demolition/clearing phase to ensure that
excessive subgrade disturbance is not caused during removal of existing structures,
pavements, vegetation, services, etc.
Pre-Construction Meeting Service
Further, Soil Surveys Engineering offer a pre-construction meeting service. The primary
objective of this service is to allow the Contractor to demonstrate to the Principal and Project
Manager that they have a complete understanding of the earthwork challenges/risks associated
with this site (i.e. trafficability conditions, treatment of weak sandy soils, use of insitu soils as
structural fill, etc.) and that they have made appropriate cost and time allowances. Excavation
of trial pits by the preferred contractor (just prior to commission) should form part of this
exercise. Our standard rates will apply for this pre-construction meeting service. Please note
that this pre-construction meeting service is recommended for this project.
6.2.3 Dewatering - Construction
The potential to encounter groundwater exists (refer Section 5.2).
For the deeper construction works e.g. tanks/pits/services/etc, a drainage system, comprising a
gravel blanket, side drains etc., grading to a sump pump, could be considered.
A groundwater study (consistent with Authority requirements) could be considered to assess
matters such as dewatering options (pre and post construction), the effect of groundwater on
foundation construction works, inflow/pumping rates, chemical composition of groundwater (to
allow assessment of groundwater disposal options), zone of influence of proposed dewatering
works (i.e. groundwater cone of depression), etc. Please note that it is important that
dewatering operations limit the extent of the groundwater cone of depression such that the
hydrological regimes that operate are not affected beyond the site.
6.2.4 Excavation Characteristics
Excavations for the underground tanks and associated services, deeper footings, etc, will be
through the existing fill and natural sandy soils, including the indurated sand layer and possibly
into / through the natural clays.
Other excavations could be shallower, based in the existing fill and/or upper level sandy soils.
Should severe seepage be present in deep trench excavations, propping and shoring of the
trenches, particularly in the soils, may be required to prevent collapse, along with temporary
dewatering during excavation and laying of service lines.
The existing fill and natural soils have the potential to “collapse/fail” unexpectedly in a trenching
situation, particularly where seepage is encountered. Trenches excavated on this site should
be considered unstable; shoring of deep trench excavations are recommended. Suitable
precautions to satisfy Health & Safety requirements must be adopted. Construction procedures
(i.e. operation of plant, storage of materials, etc.) should also be considered in all safety aspects
of trenching works and other excavations.
SOIL SURVEYS
Page 20
Project No. 1-22276 Page | 16
February, 2020
Ref: 1-22276, 2020-02-28, BR VER 2
Wessel Petroleum Pty Ltd – GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION - Proposed Service Station Reconstruction, 52-54 Mary Street and Weyba Road,
Noosaville
Strong consideration should be given to trenches deeper than 1.0m to 1.5m being supported to
prevent sidewall collapse. Support may be provided by hydraulic shutters or alternatively,
trenches may be benched or battered back to a stable angle, as per Tables 2A and 2B.
Excavations in the insitu soils should be within the capabilities of light plant, small dozer (Cat
D4C or similar) in bulk cuts and a medium sized backhoe (Case 580 or similar) or small
excavator (12t – 15t) in trenching, based on the investigation findings.
Use of larger equipment would be recommended to expedite construction particularly in the
deeper excavations that extend into and through the indurated sand layers.
6.2.5 Site Preparation Procedures
Earthworks preparation procedures should include:-
Fill and loose sandy material was encountered across the site to depths between 0.3m and
2.4m.
The presence of this fill and loose natural sandy material will impact on the proposed foundation
system, pavements and earthworks operations.
Considering that proposed earthworks operations, the following is recommended:-
Treatment of existing fill and loose natural sands to create a controlled fill platform i.e.
compaction of existing fill insitu where possible along with partial or complete removal as
required.
Placement of imported fill in a controlled manner.
Provided existing fill is adequately treated and imported fill is of low plasticity and
placed/compacted under controlled conditions and is appropriately certified by a
Registered Engineer, a conventional high level foundation system could be adopted.
Partial Subgrade Replacement
Partial subgrade replacement of the existing fill is recommended prior to construction of the
pavement areas in the area where fill stratum exceeds, say 0.5m. This option involves
excavation and replacement of the top, say 500mm below box level, with a good quality
(granular) compacted fill, with the objective being to provide a ‘bridging layer’. However, this
option is not “risk free”; the Owner would still need to accept some risk that settlement of the fill
stratum may occur - the possibility exists that the partial subgrade replacement works may not
detect all weak areas and that these undetected weak zones may lead to unacceptable
differential settlement.
Partial subgrade replacement procedures should include the following:-
Excavate existing fill to a level of approximately 500mm below box level or shallower
where competent natural soils are encountered.
The subgrade should be proof rolled (where appropriate) under the supervision of Soil
Surveys Engineering using a vehicle with a tare of at least 5 tonnes and be compacted
to the required degree. Areas demonstrating excessive movement should be treated.
Treatment should be determined on site conditions by Soil Surveys Engineering in
conjunction with other relevant parties, as relevant.
SOIL SURVEYS
Page 21
Project No. 1
1-22276 Page | 17
February, 20
020
Ref: 1-22276,
6, 2020-02-28, BR VE
ER 2
Wessel Petrooleum Pty Ltd – GE
EOTECHNICAL INVE
ESTIGATION - Propo
osed Service Statio
on Reconstruction, 52-54 Mary Street aand Weyba Road,
Noosaville
Adopt a nominal
n CB
BR value o
of 5.0% for design (tto be conffirmed based on site
e
conditions).
It is expectted that the
e majority, iff not all of the site will be clearedd following demolition..
Also, all sooils contain
ning organicc and deleterious mattter should be strippe ed from thee
construction area. This material iis not considered suitable for reusse as structural fill.
Proof roll building
b and
d pavement constructio on areas (if appropriatee) using a vehicle
v with
h
a tare of at least 5 to
onnes, unde er the supeervision of Soil
S Surveyss Engineering. Areass
demonstratting excessive moveme ent under proof
p rolling should be treated (dried/wateredd
and recom mpacted) if possible, o or removed d to compe etent materrial and repplaced withh
compacted select fill, as detailed d in the following sec ctions. Treaatment shouuld be to a
standard sufficient
s soo that the subgrade passes
p pro
oof rolling aand that th
he project’ss
compaction n specifications can b be achievedd. In areas of cut, thee proof rolling may be e
deferred to after the cu
ut operation
n.
Any fill matterial encou
untered sho ould be cons sidered unc
controlled a nd requiring
g treatmentt
(i.e. excavaate/conditio
on/replace/ccompact as s required). The degreee of treatm ment workss
should be decided
d on site by Soill Surveys Engineering
E in conjuncttion with oth
her relevantt
parties at th
he time of th
he civil worrks. Refer to
o comments s above in thhis section in relation t
partial subggrade replaccement.
Depression ns formed by b the remo oval of und
derground elements,
e vvegetation, etc. should
d
have all dissturbed, we eakened so oil cleaned out
o and be backfilled wwith compaacted selectt
fill as detailled in the fo
ollowing secctions.
Excavation sides on site
s where n not supported/retained, etc. shou ld be bench hed to "keyy
in" backfill material and optimise ccompactionn. The benc ches should slope backk at 1V:10HH
and be at least 0.5m wide.
w Wideer benches to accommodate the w width of the
e roller mayy
need to be adopted in some situa ations. Figurre 2 refers.
1
10
Min width 0.5m
0
FIGURE 2
Survey of the subgrade surfa ce (i.e. su urface folloowing strippping, demolition and d
preparation n) is recommmended; this survey y will alloww accuratee identificattion of the
e
fill/natural interface and assist witth constructtion of the proposed
p buuildings.
6.2.6 Matterial Usag
ge and Fill
From a geo otechnical perspective
p e, the insitu soils, wherre free of orrganic and deleteriouss
m be used for structtural fill pro
material, may ovided the moisture
m coontent of th
he soils, on
n
placement, approximates the OMC (Opttimum Moiisture Conntent) appropriate forr
SO
OIL SUR
RVEYS
Page 22
Project No. 1-22276 Page | 18
February, 2020
Ref: 1-22276, 2020-02-28, BR VER 2
Wessel Petroleum Pty Ltd – GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION - Proposed Service Station Reconstruction, 52-54 Mary Street and Weyba Road,
Noosaville
compaction. The soils may require conditioning to dry out/wet up, otherwise difficulties
could be experienced in handling and achieving adequate compaction. This may require
spreading, drying/wetting and mixing to achieve a uniform improvement in the materials.
Imported select fill, as required for filling in structural areas should conform to the
following specifications:-
Liquid Limit 45%, maximum
Plasticity Index 15%, maximum
Aggregate Size 100mm, maximum
Shrink/Swell Index Maximum of 1.0%
Typical material that would conform to the above quality limits would be a good to fair
quality overburden type material; such material would have a soaked CBR value of
approximately 7 to 10%.
The requirement to specify a minimum soaked CBR value is dependent on slab and
pavement design issues; this matter should be referred to the Civil Engineer.
Quality testing to confirm imported fill quality should be carried out prior to delivery to
site; frequency of testing is subject to assessment by Soil Surveys Engineering,
however, a sufficient number of tests should be carried out so that all parties are
confident of material characteristics. Quality test results should be reviewed by Soil
Surveys Engineering prior to construction.
Contractors should submit details of their proposed fill source (with quality certificates)
with their tender submission. The proposed fill source should be reviewed by Soil
Surveys Engineering prior to awarding the earthworks contract.
Pavement gravels should comply with the local authority quality specifications for base,
sub-base and blanket materials.
6.2.7 Compaction Procedures and Specifications
Provided the placement moisture content of the select insitu material or imported fill
approximates the appropriate optimum moisture content, suitable compaction should be
achievable using appropriate compaction machinery, such as a 5t-10t vibrating roller.
Layer thicknesses will be dependent on compaction plant type and size, use of vibration,
material type and condition. However, materials should not be placed in layers
exceeding 250mm, loose thickness.
From a safety aspect, it may be prudent to use a good quality granular select fill (CBR
15 minimum) in the lower levels of the deeper excavations e.g. tank pit, and compact
with a minimum 15t excavator using an open wheel roller.
The following minimum compaction values are recommended for the building and
pavement areas.
Location Cohesive Soils Cohesionless Soils
Building areas 98% 75%
Pavements areas
- Top 300mm below subgrade level 98% 80%
- Below the top 300mm 95% 70%
Where the above values are the density ratios as determined by AS 1289 Test Series 5 (Standard compaction) for
cohesive soils
Where the above values are:
1. The density ratios as determined by AS 1289 Test Series 5 (Standard compaction) for cohesive soils.
2. The density indicies as determined by AS 1289 Test 5.6.1 (Standard method) for cohesionless soils.
SOIL SURVEYS
Page 23
Project No. 1-22276 Page | 19
February, 2020
Ref: 1-22276, 2020-02-28, BR VER 2
Wessel Petroleum Pty Ltd – GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION - Proposed Service Station Reconstruction, 52-54 Mary Street and Weyba Road,
Noosaville
Pavement gravels should be compacted to the following minimum density ratios as
determined by AS 1289 Test 5.2.1 (Modified compaction):-
Base material 98%
Sub-base material 95%
Blanket material 95%
Backfill to service trenches should be placed in uniform layers over the full width of the
excavations, with the layers not exceeding 200mm loose thickness using wheeled plant
and 100mm loose thickness using vibrating plates.
The backfill material should be compacted to the above specifications for cohesive
and/or cohesionless materials.
Other comparable compaction specifications may be adopted for earthwork procedures;
however, Soil Surveys Engineering Pty Limited should be consulted to confirm these.
Consideration should be given to adopting a Level 1 earthworks control, in accordance
with the requirements outlined in AS 3798-2007, for the earthworks preparation and
filling operations to ensure the required civil specifications are met for structural support,
and long term integrity of pavements. Level 1 supervision infers that the geotechnical
testing authority provides a full time inspection and testing service on all earthworks on
the project, or the section contracted for, and decides the locations and timing of the
testing. On completion of the earthworks the geotechnical testing authority will provide a
report certifying the fill, setting out inspections, sampling and testing that have been
carried out and the locations and results thereof.
Field density testing should be carried out to check the standard of compaction achieved
and the placement moisture content. The frequency and extent of testing should be as
per guidelines in AS 3798-2007, Section 8.0 or as directed by the Level 1 engineering
supervisor.
Sands should be compacted to achieve the required density index (AS 1289 Test Series
5). Test method AS 1289 6.3.2 ‘Determination of Penetration Resistance of a soil using
the 9kg Dynamic Cone Penetrometer’ is recommended to verify compaction using
accepted density index correlation tables.
Earthworks Supervision
Engineering supervision of the earthworks operations by Soil Surveys Engineering Pty Limited
is recommended.
Following production of AS 3798-2007, the terms "Level 1 and 2 Supervision" have been
adopted in earthworks specifications to describe what could also be termed Engineering
Supervision. Whilst there is no particular problem with using these terms, there does not seem
to be wide agreement as to what Level 1 or 2 Supervision actually means or entails.
Regardless of terminology, it should be made clear in any earthworks specification as to what is
actually required in terms of certification.
It is recommended that the following objectives (as a minimum) be incorporated into the
earthworks specification:-
SOIL SURVEYS
Page 24
Project No. 1-22276 Page | 20
February, 2020
Ref: 1-22276, 2020-02-28, BR VER 2
Wessel Petroleum Pty Ltd – GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION - Proposed Service Station Reconstruction, 52-54 Mary Street and Weyba Road,
Noosaville
Engineering certification that all general earthworks operations (i.e. stripping, proof
rolling of subgrade, treatment of disturbed/weak materials etc.) have been carried out in
accordance with the earthworks specification.
Engineering certification that fill has been placed and compacted to the required
minimum density in accordance with the earthworks specification.
Engineering certification that the controlled fill is suitable for support of conventional high
level footings and has a minimum bearing capacity of 150kPa.
Engineering certification that the controlled fill material is suitable to support a
conventional slab on ground floor (slab loads of 10kPa to 15kPa are expected).
Engineering certification that the quality of any imported fill complies with the earthworks
specification requirements.
Engineering certification should be provided by a Registered Professional Engineer of
Queensland.
Please note that Soil Surveys Engineering in our role as Earthworks Supervisor (under normal
circumstances) cannot authorise variations to the contract or the use of provisional items. If the
Contractor considers that any recommendation/instruction issued by Soil Surveys Engineering
is a variation to the contract, the Contractor should advise the Superintendent and obtain written
approval before proceeding with Soil Surveys Engineering’s recommendation/instruction.
6.2.8 Temporary Batters
While earthworks details have not been provided at this stage, it is expected that temporary
batter angels will generally be less than 1.5m, with deeper excavations for the U/G tanks,
associated services, etc.
Maximum temporary cut batter angles for different material types are outlined in Table 3A for
unsurcharged batters of 2.5m maximum high on the site. With Table 3B presenting maximum
batter angels for deeper excavations on site. Where surcharges (e.g. footings, live loads, etc.)
are located within H (height of batter) of the top of the batter, then some reduction in design
angle will occur. Service trenches and underground elements adjacent to batters may result in
some reduction of the design angle. Steeper batters are possible by use of temporary
retention.
TABLE 3A TEMPORARY BATTER ANGLES (Slopes less than 2.5m high)
Material Temporary Angles (o)
Very Loose to Loose(1) NR
Sandy Soils Medium Dense(2) 35 (1V:1.45H)
Dense to Very Dense 40 (1V:1.2H)
Soft to Firm(1) NR
Clay Soils Stiff(2) 35 (1V:1.45H)
Very Stiff to Hard 40 (1V:1.2H)
Notes:
1. Also indicates uncontrolled sandy or clayey fill.
2. Also indicates controlled sandy or clayey fill.
3. These values assume no seepage. If seepage is present the recommended angles would need to be
significantly reduced or the use of dewatering considered.
4. NR – Not Recorded. Temporary shoring should be considered.
SOIL SURVEYS
Page 25
Project No. 1-22276 Page | 21
February, 2020
Ref: 1-22276, 2020-02-28, BR VER 2
Wessel Petroleum Pty Ltd – GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION - Proposed Service Station Reconstruction, 52-54 Mary Street and Weyba Road,
Noosaville
TABLE 3B TEMPORARY CUT BATTER ANGLES (Depths 2.5m to 5m)
Material Temporary Batter Angle (o)
Very Loose to Loose/Fill NR (Temporary shoring to be adopted)
Sandy Soils Medium Dense 26 (1V:2H)
Dense to Very Dense 35 (1V:1.45H)
Soft to Firm/Fill NR (Temporary shoring to be adopted)
Clay Soils Stiff 30 (1V:1.75H)
Very Stiff to Hard 35 (1V:1.65H)
Inspection of cut batters should be carried out by a Geotechnical Engineer from Soil
Surveys Engineering, at the COMMENCEMENT OF BULK EXCAVATION WORKS, to
confirm the stability of temporary cut batters.
Excavations must also consider the stability/integrity of adjacent structures, services,
elements in regard to potential destabilisation in the generation of lateral movement
and/or settlement of these. Measure to address potential adverse effects could include,
amongst others, repositioning of excavations/tanks etc., underpinning of structures,
temporary support (propping of structures, as appropriate). Soil Surveys Engineering
should be contacted should such a potential situation arise.
Refer to Section 6.5 for comments on temporary retention.
6.3 Site Classification
6.3.1 General
While a site classification in accordance with AS 2870 'Residential Slabs and Footings' relates
to residential type construction and is not directly applicable for this development, it is, however,
a valuable method of classification.
Considering the presence of the existing fill and the existing and proposed development works
the site is classified as a Class ‘P’ site in accordance with AS 2870 ‘Residential Slabs and
Footings’.
Please note Class ‘P’ does not signify any particular severe problem, but rather that the site is
disqualified from the other classes and therefore requires special consideration using
engineering principles.
In terms of reactivity, a characteristic surface movement (ys) of <20mm has been calculated for
the existing subsurface profile.
It should be noted that potential differential settlements induced by densification of the weak fill
and natural soils under loading will be in addition to any characteristic value.
For the purpose of design of sanitary drainage/plumbing systems It should be noted that a soil
classification to AS 2870 is Class ‘S’ (Slightly Reactive) based on site considerations.
It is recommended that the footing and slab systems be designed to accommodate the
anticipated ground surface movement.
Also, it is recommended that the designer satisfy themself that the use of AS 2870 is applicable
for the proposed design.
SOIL SURVEYS
Page 26
Project No. 1-22276 Page | 22
February, 2020
Ref: 1-22276, 2020-02-28, BR VER 2
Wessel Petroleum Pty Ltd – GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION - Proposed Service Station Reconstruction, 52-54 Mary Street and Weyba Road,
Noosaville
6.4 Building Foundation System
6.4.1 Design Considerations
The foundation system for the proposed building should be designed and constructed to
accommodate the potential ground movement resulting from the differential settlement of the
weak fill and natural soils together with volume instability of the clay soils.
There is the potential for differential settlement resettling from densification of the fill and very
loose to loose natural sands under loading. The weak material extended to depths of between
0.3m and 2.4m at the borehole locations. For the anticipated structural loadings and the limiting
design allowable bearing pressures as outlined in Table 3, potential settlements would be a
maximum of 25mm at the borehole locations, except in BH9 where deep fill to 2.4m depth
(possible U/G tank backfill) where the potential value would increase to the order of 40mm.
Foundation Options
Both high level and deep support foundation systems could be considered for the proposed
development provided the designs accommodate the above considerations and earthworks are
carried out in accordance with the recommendations outlined in this report.
6.4.2 High Level Footings
High level strip/pad footings should extend through uncontrolled fill and found a minimum of
200mm into controlled fill (provided existing fill and loose natural soils have been removed
or appropriately treated), or natural competent material.
Table 4 outlines allowable bearing capacities for high level footings on the site.
TABLE 4 ALLOWABLE BEARING CAPACITIES FOR HIGH LEVEL FOOTINGS
Allowable Bearing Capacity (kPa)
Material
Strip Footing Pad Footing
- Existing NR NR
Fill
- Controlled & Certified 100-150 100-150
- Very loose to Loose NR NR
Sandy Soils - Medium Dense 100 125
- Dense / Very Dense 400 450
Notes:
1. The allowable bearing capacity available in the controlled and certified fill will be dependent on the GTA
undertaking the supervision works together with the base preparation and quality of the fill.
The base of all pad and strip footings founding in sand should be individually recompacted
using a vibrating plate compactor prior to placement of reinforcing steel and concrete as soils
may be loosened during the excavation process by machinery action.
If the sand is dry, it should be saturated and left for a short period prior to compaction. Should
any loose areas be encountered in the footing excavations, the density of these areas must be
improved. Dynamic cone penetrometer tests should be carried out to confirm the adequacy of
the founding soils. Note that it may be necessary to use formwork to prevent trench side
collapse in the sand profile.
SOIL SURVEYS
Page 27
Project No. 1-22276 Page | 23
February, 2020
Ref: 1-22276, 2020-02-28, BR VER 2
Wessel Petroleum Pty Ltd – GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION - Proposed Service Station Reconstruction, 52-54 Mary Street and Weyba Road,
Noosaville
6.4.3 Deep Foundations
Given the subsurface conditions encountered, bored piers are not recommended due to the
potential for sidewall collapse and high groundwater issues. Refer construction
recommendations. Screw piers are recommended.
General
It is recommended that the deep foundations used on this project be designed in accordance
with AS 2159-2009 Piling - Design and installation. This code uses the limit state design
method. In the limit state design method the following must be taken into account:-
Ultimate strength - the design of a single pile or a pile group must be such that both the
design geotechnical strength (Rd,g) and the structural strength (Rd,s) are greater than or
equal to the Design action effect (Ed) i.e.:-
Rd,g ≥ Ed and Rd,s ≥ Ed
Serviceability - Single piles and pile groups shall be designed for serviceability by
controlling or limiting pile movements
Durability - This is outlined in Section 6 of AS 2159-2009 and will not be discussed any
further here
Any other factors that need to be considered i.e. stability, scour, fatigue, cyclic loading or
seismic actions - As we are not aware that any of these factors will affect the pile design
they will not be considered any further.
Ultimate Strength Design
The design of a deep foundation system should consider the following:-
Compressional capacity i.e. base bearing and skin friction design values, this will also
include negative skin friction effects.
Tensional capacity and effects i.e. potential uplift due to expansive clays.
Lateral capacity of the piles
Construction considerations - See Section 6.4.4.
Compressional Capacity
The design geotechnical strength (Rd,g) can be calculated as the design ultimate geotechnical
strength (Rd,ug) multiplied by the geotechnical strength reduction factor g). The ultimate
geotechnical strength parameters for the materials encountered on the site are outlined in Table
5.
SOIL SURVEYS
Page 28
Project No. 1
1-22276 Page | 24
February, 20
020
Ref: 1-22276,
6, 2020-02-28, BR VE
ER 2
Wessel Petrooleum Pty Ltd – GE
EOTECHNICAL INVE
ESTIGATION - Propo
osed Service Statio
on Reconstruction, 52-54 Mary Street aand Weyba Road,
Noosaville
TABLE
E5 ULT
TIMATE GE
EOTECHNIC
CAL STRE
ENGTH PAR
RAMETERS
S
Basee Bearing (kP
Pa)
Mate
erial Skin Fric
ction (kPa)
L < 4D L > 4D
Fill NR NR NC
N
- Stifff 300 450 25
Clay
- Verry Stiff 600 900 45
4
- Looose NR NR NC
N
Sandy S
Soils - Medium Dense 400 400 20
- Den nse to Very Dense
D 1200 1200 30
Notes:
1. NR – Not Recomm mended; NC – Not Considerred for skin friction calculations.
2. Ultimmate geotechn nical strength for
f compressio on can be determined from Rd,ug = fbAB B + fm,s.As
3. Reco ommended ge eotechnical strrength reductio on factor (Øg)) = Refer Table 4.3.2(c) AS 2159-2009.
4. Conssidering limit state
s analysis (AS 2159-200 09), the design n geotechnicaal strength R*,gg is calculated
d by
multiiplying the ultimate geotech hnical strength
h Rd,ug by the e geotechnical strength reduuction factor Øg,
Ø i.e. Rd,g =
Rd,u ug x Øg.
5. Shou uld a "working
g stress" appro oach be adoptted, a minimum m factor of saffety of 3.0 on base and 2.0 on skin
frictio
on is recomme ended.
6. The above parame eters are for single
s piers/pile
es. If piers/pile
es are spacedd closer than thhree diameterrs a reduction
factoor ( Group Efficiency Ratio) may apply.
The cap
pacity of a pile
p may als
so be consid
dered in terrms of torqu
ue/set achieeved.
6.4.4 Con
nstruction Recommen
ndations
Footing
gs Adjacent to Undergrround Servicces
Where footings arre located adjacent
a to
o undergrou und services, the footiings should
d extend to
o
base a minimum ofo 300mm below the trench base e level for a distance of 1.0m ou
ut from the
e
trench. Beyond 1.0m the foo otings shou ld be takenn a minimum m of 300mm m below ann imaginaryy
plane drawn up at 45˚ from the trench ba
ase level, (F
Figure 3).
Service
S Tre
ench 1
or 1
Retaining W
Wall 2200mm
F
Found footin
ngs
1.0m B
Below these
e lines
200mm
FIGURE 3
These rrequirements do not ov
verride miniimum footin
ng levels.
SO
OIL SUR
RVEYS
Page 29
Project No. 1-22276 Page | 25
February, 2020
Ref: 1-22276, 2020-02-28, BR VER 2
Wessel Petroleum Pty Ltd – GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION - Proposed Service Station Reconstruction, 52-54 Mary Street and Weyba Road,
Noosaville
High Level Footings
Given the properties of the founding materials it is recommended that the footings be poured as
soon as possible following excavation, to minimise the potential for desiccation/wetting up of the
founding material. Where the footings cannot be poured the same day as excavation it is
recommended that a blinding layer of concrete, at least 50mm thick, be placed immediately
following excavation, cleaning and inspection of the footing bases.
Where clean sands are exposed at footing base level (depending on excavation disturbance)
the exposed material may need to be damped and compacted.
It is recommended that inspections be undertaken by an experienced and qualified geotechnical
engineer from Soil Surveys Engineering following footing excavations to confirm the adequacy
of the founding soils. Inspections should be carried out prior to placement of reinforcing steel
and ordering of concrete.
Piers/Piles
Difficulty with fall-in may occur with bored piers, particularly when drilling through fill material
and loose natural, and below the water table. It should be ensured that all loose material is
removed from the base of piers prior to pouring of concrete. The use of a 'clean-out' bucket
should be explicit in instructions to the drilling contractor. The practice of 'using water and
spinning the augers' to remove loose material from the pier base is generally unacceptable.
Groundwater was encountered in boreholes (refer Section 5.2) at the time of the investigation.
Should a bored pier foundation system be adopted, some allowance for dewatering and the use
of liners should be made. In addition, it may be prudent to drill a "trial pier" to fully assess
construction difficulties.
Given the nature and strength of the subsurface material encountered, it is recommended that
inspections be undertaken by an experienced geotechnical engineer/engineering geologist from
Soil Surveys Engineering Pty Limited during pier excavations to confirm the adequacy of the
founding material. Inspections should be carried out prior to placement of reinforcing steel and
following cleaning of pier bases.
Driven piles should only be used if vibration will not cause problems to surrounding structures.
Adequate vibration monitoring and control should be carried out.
Some difficulty may be expected with screw piers being installed to levels into and below the
indurated sand layer due to soil strength.
For the driven pile and screw pile options, specialist piling contractors should make their own
assessment of pile founding levels/pile lengths considering pile loads requirements and
subsurface conditions.
Articulation
It is essential that the building be suitably articulated/detailed to allow for ground surface
movement and potential differential movement. Your attention is drawn to recommendations
contained in Section 6.8.
It is recommended/suggested that masonry walls (if any) supported on high level footings be
articulated. This articulation may be achieved by the use of full height (footings to eaves)
SOIL SURVEYS
Page 30
Project No. 1-22276 Page | 26
February, 2020
Ref: 1-22276, 2020-02-28, BR VER 2
Wessel Petroleum Pty Ltd – GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION - Proposed Service Station Reconstruction, 52-54 Mary Street and Weyba Road,
Noosaville
openings or vertical construction joints at regular intervals. Guidelines on articulation are
contained in the Cement and Concrete Association's Technical Note 61 'Articulated Walling'.
6.4.5 Slab On Ground
Field and laboratory test results indicate that the existing fill and natural soils, along with any
controlled fill, are suitable for slab on ground construction provided that earthworks are
carried out in accordance with recommendations in Section 6.2.
However the existing fill as encountered at the location of BH9 is considered unsuitable for slab
on ground support. A fully suspended system support on pier is recommended in areas of deep
filling.
Sub-Base
It is suggested that a 150mm layer of sub-base be provided under all vehicular trafficked
concrete slabs. The sub-base material should be compacted to a density not less than 95% of
maximum dry density in accordance with AS 1289 5.2.1 (Modified compaction). The sub-base is
provided under a concrete slab to:-
Provide a stable 'working platform' on which to operate construction equipment.
Facilitate the provision of a uniform bearing surface under the slab.
Sub-base material should be of good quality conforming to requirements (minimum) of Material
Type 2.4 as specified in the Department of Transport and Main Roads Technical Standards
MRTS05 Unbound Pavements (July, 2017).
6.5 Temporary Retention
It is understood that excavation for underground storage tanks and potentially surrounding
contaminated soils (if present) could be expected to be of the order of 4.5m, or deeper.
Considering the subsurface profile encountered, in particular the very loose to loose sandy soils
and a high water table, temporary retention/shoring of the deeper excavations is expected to be
required and recommended.
Shallower excavations may be suitable to batter to the safe batter angles outlined in Section
6.2.8 of this report, where lateral clearance between the top of the excavation batter and
adjacent structures/boundaries/services is available. The presence and rate of groundwater
seepage into the excavation must also be taken into consideration where batter angles are
adopted.
Given the geotechnical model based on the boreholes drilled on site, the underground storage
tank excavation will extend through the fill and upper level loose/medium dense sandy soils, the
indurated sand layer and into the underlying medium dense sandy soils and very stiff clays.
Table 6 presents the geotechnical design parameters for retention design.
SOIL SURVEYS
Page 31
Project No. 1-22276 Page | 27
February, 2020
Ref: 1-22276, 2020-02-28, BR VER 2
Wessel Petroleum Pty Ltd – GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION - Proposed Service Station Reconstruction, 52-54 Mary Street and Weyba Road,
Noosaville
TABLE 6 GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN PARAMETERS
Angle of Shear Strength
Unit Weight
Material type 3 Internal
(kN/m ) Cu (kPa) C’ (kPa)
Friction (°)
Fill / Loose Natural Sands 18.5 26 NA 0
Medium Dense Sands 19.5 33 NA 0
Dense Sands 21.0 35 NA 5
Very Stiff Clays 19.5 27 150 2
Note: The above parameters are based upon interpretations of the soil descriptions and the
reported DCP results.
The lateral earth pressure distribution that affects the retention systems on the site will depend
upon the following parameters:-
Insitu material properties.
Design water regime at the rear of the retention wall.
Retention system type and cut geometry.
Boundary conditions i.e., location and type (i.e., movement sensitivity) of nearby
structures, need for underpinning, adjacent service, surcharges, etc.
The structural bracing/anchoring of the system.
Construction Options
Options which may be considered for temporary retention include:
Batter to safe angle – possible option only if adequate space is available and for shallow
excavations. Refer to Section 6.2.8 of this report.
Sheet piles – Steel sheets are driven or vibrated along the line of the proposed
excavations. Difficulties expected in penetrating lower level soils with pre-boring
expected to be required in the indurated sands.
Pile type system (contiguous, secant, etc). These type of systems involves piers drilled
at nominated spacings, including overlapping, with the spaces, where present, filled with
sprayed concrete, etc. The piers would be drilled to below the depth of maximum
excavation and suitably anchored (if required). The pier spacing depends on the
stability and effect of seepage of the exposed materials during construction as well as
required wall stiffness The Secant system would provide a better watertight retention
system.
Whatever temporary retention system is adopted a detailed design will be required to
determine the appropriate support system. The magnitude of differential settlement /
displacement that may be acceptable will be subject to adjacent conditions (e.g.,
proximity of adjacent services, structures, boundaries). Soil Surveys Engineering is well
placed to assist with the design of any proposed system.
SOIL SURVEYS
Page 32
Project No. 1-22276 Page | 28
February, 2020
Ref: 1-22276, 2020-02-28, BR VER 2
Wessel Petroleum Pty Ltd – GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION - Proposed Service Station Reconstruction, 52-54 Mary Street and Weyba Road,
Noosaville
6.6 Retaining Wall
6.6.1 General
It is recommended that any retaining structure is designed in accordance with AS 46-2002
‘Earth Retaining Structures’. Section 3 of this code outlines the design requirements for these
retaining structures which specifically includes both Ultimate and Serviceability Limit Modes, it is
recommended that the retaining structures be assessed for each of these modes.
Walls should be designed in accordance with Australian Standard 4678-2002 earth-retaining
structures.
Various retaining wall options could be considered for construction. The option chosen will
depend on several factors including:-
Loading on wall
Space requirements
Founding conditions
Earthworks requirements
The lateral earth pressure distribution that affects the retaining walls on the site will depend
upon the following parameters:-
Insitu and backfill material properties
Design water regime at the rear of the wall
Wall and cut geometry
Surcharges affecting the wall
Wall type
The structural bracing of the wall and the timing of backfilling behind the wall.
6.6.2 Pressure Distribution
The following situations should be considered:-
For cantilever walls, which allow some movement at the top, (i.e. at least 0.005H in
clays) the active case (Ka) applies with a triangular distribution in both the short and
long term situations.
For cantilever walls which cannot tolerate this movement, the at rest case (Ko) applies
with a triangular distribution in both the short and long term situations.
Figure 4 refers.
SOIL SURVEYS
Page 33
Project No. 1-22276 Page | 29
February, 2020
Ref: 1-22276, 2020-02-28, BR VER 2
Wessel Petroleum Pty Ltd – GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION - Proposed Service Station Reconstruction, 52-54 Mary Street and Weyba Road,
Noosaville
TRAPEZOIDAL DISTRIBUTION TRIANGULAR DISTRIBUTION
0.25H
H OR
0.4 H 0.65 Ka H
0.25H
Stiff Clay Sand H
FIGURE 4
The lateral pressure distributions shown in Figure 4 do not include hydrostatic pressure or
surcharge loadings. It is recommended that where the retaining walls are expected to be
surcharged (e.g. by footings, traffic loads, sloping ground surface, etc.) Soil Surveys
Engineering should be contacted to provide a recommended lateral earth pressure distribution.
The parameters selected for use in Figure 4 are dependent on the preconstruction geometry of
the face being retained. Where the material has been cut using the recommendations (or flatter)
as outlined in Section 6.2.8 the backfill parameters will control. Where a steeper angle is used,
the earth parameters will control.
As a general guide (using an elastic model) line loads located 2.5H away from the wall (where
H is the wall height) results in lateral forces of less than 10% of the line load. Parameters for
assessment of lateral earth pressures are outlined in Table 7.
SOIL SURVEYS
Page 34
Project No. 1-22276 Page | 30
February, 2020
Ref: 1-22276, 2020-02-28, BR VER 2
Wessel Petroleum Pty Ltd – GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION - Proposed Service Station Reconstruction, 52-54 Mary Street and Weyba Road,
Noosaville
TABLE 7 RETAINING WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS (Unfactored)
Long Term Earth Pressure Coefficient(1)
Bulk Density
Material Drained Shear Flat Top Slope Passive Kp
(kN/m3)
Angle (o) Ka Ko
SP/SM
- Loose(2) 18 28 0.36 0.53 2.76
- Medium Dense(3) 19 33 0.29 0.49 3.39
- Dense/Very Dense 20 38 0.24 0.38 4.20
Clays
- Firm(2) 16.5 23 0.43 0.61 2.33
- Stiff(3) 18 25 0.41 0.58 2.46
- Very Stiff 19 25 0.41 0.58 2.46
- Hard 20 25 0.41 0.58 2.46
Gravel(4) 19.0 35 0.27 0.43 3.69
Notes:-
1. These values of earth pressure co-efficient ignore the effects of wall friction.
2. Also refers to uncontrolled fill for the material type.
3. Also refers to controlled fill for the material type.
4. Infers granular free draining material placed behind the retaining wall as a drainage layer.
5. If fill is compacted against the retaining wall, the actual earth pressure could exceed the vertical pressure, (ie. Ka
>1.0).
6. These values do not account for a backslope.
Resisting forces to sliding and rotation are provided by the shear resistance at the concrete
footing/soil or rock interface and the passive soil resistance in front of the footing or shear key,
for which the following design parameters are presented:-
i) Base friction for walls without a key may be taken as tan (2/3 Ø). If the wall has a
shallow base key the shearing resistance may be based on tan Ø. Refer to Table 7
for shear angle.
ii) Soil density as in Table 7.
iii) The passive pressure coefficient Kp as in Table 7.
iv) Base bearing capacity as in Table 4.
6.6.3 Resistance to Lateral Forces
Retaining walls can be designed to resist lateral pressure distribution in several ways ie.:-
Passive resistance at the toe of the wall
Passive resistance at the key of the wall
Frictional resistance due to the weight of the wall
Propping off existing structures
As the resistance can be affected by various parameters, Soil Surveys Engineering should be
contacted once a general wall geometry has been identified to provide further comment.
6.6.4 Construction Considerations
With all retaining walls, it is essential that adequate drainage be provided behind the wall. Any
backfill placed behind the wall should be loose granular material. The backfill should not be
heavily compacted since research has shown that compaction can raise the earth pressure to
above the 'at rest' pressure.
The placement of a filter fabric between the retained soil and the drainage material (e.g.
granular backfill) for protection against silting of the drainage material is recommended. The
SOIL SURVEYS
Page 35
Project No. 1-22276 Page | 31
February, 2020
Ref: 1-22276, 2020-02-28, BR VER 2
Wessel Petroleum Pty Ltd – GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION - Proposed Service Station Reconstruction, 52-54 Mary Street and Weyba Road,
Noosaville
outlets to subsoil pipe drains must be located beyond the ends of the walls and connected to a
proper drainage system. It is suggested the pipes be wrapped in filter fabric to minimise silting.
Adequate surface and subsoil drainage should be provided for all retaining walls on the site.
Cut-off / interceptor drains should also be provided around the high side of the wall to ensure
stormwater runoff from the area above the wall is suitably diverted.
In weather exposed locations, to reduce infiltration by surface runoff, the surface of the backfill
should be sealed. This can be achieved by either compacting a material of low permeability or
concrete, etc. with a slope towards an open drain.
It is essential that backfill be properly placed to avoid drains being blocked by fines washed out
of the fill. However, within 0.5m behind the wall the backfill should be loose as research has
shown that compaction directly behind the wall can significantly raise the earth pressure against
the wall to above the 'at rest' case.
During installation of any retaining walls, the insitu soils should be battered back to minimise
fall-in and subsequent disruption of works. Temporary batter angles are given in Section 6.2.8.
Suitable precautions to satisfy Health & Safety requirements must also be adhered to.
6.7 Pavements
Final pavement levels have not been detailed but are expected to be similar to existing site
surface levels and as such the subgrade would be the existing sandy fill material or future fill.
Dynamic cone penetrometer test results indicate insitu CBR values, in the upper level fill and
natural soils are quite variable/consistent across the site, ranging from 4% to in excess of 10%.
Based on the investigation findings and providing that the recommendations outlined in the
following section are complied with, the following pavement design values may be adopted for
the development.
TABLE 8 DESIGN VALUES
Modulus of Subgrade Reaction
Material CBR Value (%)
(kPa/mm)
Use CBR value of material, see
Controlled Fill Based on CBR value
Section 6.2
(2)
Existing Sand Fill 5 30
Note:- (1) Assume minimum CBR value of 10%.
(2) Existing material appropriately treated (conditioned and compacted).
Along with recommendations contained in Section 6.2 the following general earthworks
recommendations are made:-
i) Incorporate a perimeter drain at the pavement edges to prevent possible
deterioration under wet weather.
ii) Pavements should be well drained both during and upon completion of construction.
Water should not be allowed to pond on or near pavement surfaces.
iii) Pavement gravel should comply with the Local Council quality specifications for sub
base and base course material.
iv) Subgrades should be compacted to achieve the minimum density ratios as outlined
in Section 6.2 'Civil Works'.
v) It is recommended that inspection and testing be carried out following general
earthworks to confirm subgrade conditions.
SOIL SURVEYS
Page 36
Project No. 1-22276 Page | 32
February, 2020
Ref: 1-22276, 2020-02-28, BR VER 2
Wessel Petroleum Pty Ltd – GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION - Proposed Service Station Reconstruction, 52-54 Mary Street and Weyba Road,
Noosaville
6.8 Site Management
It is important that proper site management methods be observed for the existing soil conditions
by both the builder at the time of the construction and the owner(s) throughout the life of the
proposed development.
Particular reference to site management matters is set out in AS 2870-2011. It should be noted
that where proper site management, particularly with respect to change in moisture conditions,
is not followed, the foundation recommendations contained in this report could be considered
void.
The following are some specific comments with respect to site management and the reader is
also directed to CSIRO publication, “Foundation Maintenance and Footing Performance: A
Homeowners Guide” (Building Technology File 18) for further information:-
It is important that the site be well drained. The ground around the structures should
slope away at 1 in 50 for 3 metres and then fall to the stormwater system to prevent
ponding of water adjacent to the structures.
It is recommended that service trenches under the building be minimised as disruption
or breakage of these service building lines could lead to saturation of the under slab
material resulting in an increase to moisture condition. If this were to occur, all footing
recommendations contained within this report would be void.
Roof downpipes and garden taps should not be allowed to saturate founding soils.
The importance of avoiding leakage from underground services and drains near the
structures is stressed. Any leaking services or blocked drains should be remedied
promptly. It is advisable to use flexible joints, allowing horizontal and vertical movement
where service pipes pass through the foundation structure (floor and slab). The bases of
services trenches should fall away from the building.
Do not let the slab subgrade "dry out" prior to casting.
Footings should be placed with minimal delay after excavation to avoid desiccation or
wetting of the founding soils. If footings cannot be poured on the same day as
excavation, a blinding layer of 50mm thickness is recommended. Piers should be
poured immediately following excavation.
7.0 CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION
It is recommended that placement of all structural fill, footing excavations, and cut batter slopes
in soil together with building and pavement subgrades should be inspected by Soil Surveys
Engineering Pty. Limited. or a duly qualified Geotechnical Engineer. Should subsurface
conditions other than those described in this report be encountered, Soil Surveys Engineering
Pty. Limited. should be consulted immediately and appropriate modifications developed and
implemented if necessary.
SOIL SURVEYS
Page 37
Project No. 1-22276 Page | 33
February, 2020
Ref: 1-22276, 2020-02-28, BR VER 2
Wessel Petroleum Pty Ltd – GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION - Proposed Service Station Reconstruction, 52-54 Mary Street and Weyba Road,
Noosaville
8.0 EARTHQUAKE SITE CLASSIFICATION
It is recommended that the following coefficients be adopted for the design of the structure on
this site according to AS 1170.4-2007 Structural design actions Part 4: Earthquake actions in
Australia :-
Hazard Factor (Z) = 0.08 - Table 3.2 - Noosa
Site sub-soil class, depending on founding level for the main structure shall be (Refer
Section 4 of code):-
Class De – Deep Soils Site
9.0 LIMITATIONS
We have prepared this report for the use of Wessel Petroleum Pty Ltd, for design purposes in
accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices. No other warranty,
expressed or implied, is made as to the professional advice included in this report. This report
has not been prepared for use by parties other than Wessel Petroleum Pty Ltd; it may not
contain sufficient information for purposes of other parties or for other uses. Please note that
any third party relying on the information contained in this report for any purpose whatsoever
does so entirely at its own risk, and any duty of care to that third party is excluded.
Any interpretation or recommendation given by Soil Surveys Engineering shall be understood to
be based on judgement and experience and not on greater knowledge of the facts than the
reported investigations would imply. The interpretation and recommendations are therefore
opinions provided for our Client’s sole use in accordance with the specific brief. As such they do
not necessarily address all aspects of ground behaviour on the subject site. Information
provided by others has been taken in good faith, but no liability can be accepted for information
provided by others.
Your attention is drawn to ‘Appendix A’, ‘Notes Relating to this Report’. Interpretation of factual
data given in this report is based on judgement, not a greater knowledge of facts other than
those reported.
Interpretation of the information shown on the logs, and its application to design and
construction, should therefore take into account the spacing and depth of boreholes, the
method of drilling, the frequency of sampling and testing and the possibility of other than
“straight line” variations between the boreholes. Subsurface conditions between and below
boreholes may vary significantly from conditions encountered at the borehole locations.
Please note, if following detailed design, the founding depth of any footings or piers/piles is
within 3B (B = footing width/pier diameter) above the termination depth of the
boreholes/pits/CPTU or if any excavations extend below the borehole/pit/CPTU termination
levels, then Soil Surveys Engineering should be contacted immediately.
If the above were to occur then the geotechnical data in this report should be considered
preliminary only; additional investigation is likely to be required.
In the event that conditions encountered on site during construction appear to vary from those
expected from the information contained in the report, the Company strongly recommends that
it immediately be notified. Most problems are more readily resolved when conditions are
SOIL SURVEYS
Page 38
Project No. 1-22276 Page | 34 February, 2020 Rof: 1-22276, 2020-02-28, BR VER 2 a '—- GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION - Proposed Service Station Reconstruction, 52-54 Mary Street and Weyba Road, Noosaville exposed than at some later stage, after the event. Should Soil Surveys Engineering not be notified or if this notification is delayed, then Soil Surveys can not be held responsible for the effect that any variation has on any aspect of the development. Soil Surveys Engineering consider that a documentation review service (during the design phase and prior to construction) to verify that the intent of geotechnical recommendations is properly reflected in the design, along with construction inspections, forms a very important component of the geotechnical engineering design service/process. The geotechnical review ensures geotechnical risks to our Client and their project are minimised at the design and tender stage of the project. Further, with Soil Surveys Engineering being commissioned to carry out geotechnical construction inspections, an opportunity at the time of construction to confirm any assumptions made in the preparation of the report and allow “the effect of any normally occurring variation in ground conditions to be assessed with respect to construction becomes available. The above statements are not intended to reduce the level of responsibility accepted by Soil Surveys Engineering in accordance with our commission, but rather to ensure that all parties who may rely on this report are aware of the responsibilities each assumes in doing so and the risks they accept should they decline to have Soil Surveys Engineering carry out a geotechnical documentation review and geotechnical construction inspections. It is highly recommended that the Client avail themselves of these review and inspection services; our standard rates will apply. C.P. JOHNSON (RPEQ 7052 PRINCIPAL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER SOIL SURVEYS ENGINEERING PTY LIMITED SOIL SURVEYS
Page 39
Project No. 1-22276 Page 35
Ref: 1-22276, 2020-02-28, BR VER 2
Wessel Petroleum Pty Ltd – Proposed Service Station Reconstruction, 52-54 Mary Street and Weyba Road, Noosaville
APPENDICES
SOIL SURVEYS
Page 40
Project No. 1-22276 Page 36
Ref: 1-22276, 2020-02-28, BR VER 2
Wessel Petroleum Pty Ltd – Proposed Service Station Reconstruction, 52-54 Mary Street and Weyba Road, Noosaville
APPENDIX A
NOTES RELATING TO THIS REPORT
SOIL SURVEYS
Page 41
NOTES RELATING TO THIS REPORT
September, 2019
INTRODUCTION determination of shear strength, volume change potential
and compressibility. Undisturbed sampling is generally
These notes are provided by Soil Surveys Engineering Pty
effective only in cohesive soils.
Limited (the Company) to complement the geotechnical
report in regard to classification methods and field Details of the type and method of sampling used are given
procedures. Not all notes are necessarily relevant to all on the attached logs.
reports.
SAMPLE STORAGE – SOIL, ROCK AND WATER
The ground is a product of continuing natural and man-made
SAMPLES
processes and therefore exhibits a variety of characteristics
and properties which vary from place to place and can Soil samples (not subject to testing) are not stored beyond a
change with time. Geotechnical engineering involves period of 90 days of taking or receiving said soil sample.
gathering and assimilating limited information about these Rock core (not subject to testing) is not stored beyond a
characteristics and properties in order to understand or period of six months of taking or receiving said rock core.
predict the behaviour of the ground on a particular site under
Should any party require that soil samples (not subject to
certain conditions. This report may contain such information
testing) be stored beyond 90 days, or rock core (not subject
obtained by inspection, excavation, probing, sampling,
to testing) be stored beyond six months, please contact Soil
testing or other means of investigation. If so, they are directly
Surveys Engineering.
relevant only to the ground at the place where and at the
time when the investigation was carried out. Water samples (not subject to testing) are not stored beyond
a period of seven days of taking or receiving water samples.
DESCRIPTION AND CLASSIFICATION METHODS
TEST LOCATIONS
Soils - The methods of description and classification of soils
and rocks used in this report are based on Australian Test locations (e.g. boreholes, CPT’s, test pits etc.) were
Standard 1726-2017 (Geotechnical Site Investigations), based on available access at the time of testing. Test
where appropriate. In general, descriptions cover the locations may have been shifted if access was not suitable.
following properties - soil or rock type, colour, structure,
Unless noted otherwise, accuracy of test locations are to the
strength or density, and inclusions. Identification and
accuracy of hand held GPS equipment.
classification of soil and rock involves judgement and the
Company infers accuracy only to the extent that is common INVESTIGATION METHODS
in current geotechnical practice.
The following is a brief summary of investigation methods
Soil types are described according to the dominant particle currently adopted by the Company and some comments on
size and behaviour as set out in AS 1726-2017. their use and application.
Cohesive soils are classified on the basis of strength Test Pits - These are normally excavated with a backhoe or
(consistency) either by use of hand penetrometer, shear a tracked excavator, allowing close examination of the insitu
vane, laboratory testing or engineering examination. The soils if it is safe to descend into the pit. The depth of
strength terms are defined in AS 1726-2017 Table 11. penetration is limited to approximately 3.0m for a backhoe
and up to 6.0m for an excavator. Limitations of test pits are
Non-cohesive soils are classified on the basis of relative
the problems associated with disturbance and difficulty of
density usually based on insitu testing or engineering
reinstatement and the consequent effects on close-by
examination (see AS 1726-2017 Table 12).
structures. Care must be taken if construction is to be carried
Rocks - Rock types are classified by their geological names out near test pit locations to either properly recompact the
(AS 1726-2017 Tables 15 to 18), together with descriptive backfill during construction or to design and construct the
terms regarding weathering (AS 1726-2017 Table 20), structure so as not to be adversely affected by poorly
strength (AS 1726-2017 Table 19), defects (AS 1726-2017 compacted backfill at the test pit location.
Table 22), etc.
Hand Auger Drilling - A borehole of 50mm to 100mm
SAMPLING diameter is advanced by manually operated equipment.
Refusal of the augers can occur on a variety of materials
Sampling is carried out during drilling or from other
such as hard clay, gravel or rock fragments and does not
excavations to allow engineering examination (and
necessarily indicate rock level.
laboratory testing where required) of the soil or rock.
Continuous Spiral Flight Augers - The borehole is
Disturbed samples taken during drilling provide information
advanced using 75mm to 300 mm diameter continuous spiral
on plasticity, grain size, colour, moisture content, minor
flight augers, which are withdrawn at intervals to allow
constituents and, depending upon sample disturbance,
sampling or insitu testing. This is a relatively economical
(information on strength and structure).
means of drilling in clays and in sands above the water table.
Undisturbed samples are taken by pushing a thin walled Samples are returned to the surface by the flights or may be
sample tube, usually 50mm diameter (U50), into the soil and collected after withdrawal of the augers. Information from
withdrawing it with a sample of the soil contained in a the drilling (as distinct from specific sampling) is of relatively
relatively undisturbed state. Such samples yield information lower reliability due to remoulding, inclusion of cuttings from
on structure and strength, and are necessary for laboratory above or softening of samples by groundwater, or
Page 42
NOTES RELATING TO THIS REPORT
September, 2019
uncertainties as to the original depth of the samples. In a case where the test is discontinued short of full
Augering below the groundwater table has a lower reliability penetration, say after 15 blows for the first 150 mm and 30
than augering above the water table. Various drill bits are blows for the next 40 mm, the record shows:
attached to the base of the augers during the drilling. The
15, 30/40mm
depth of refusal of the different bit types can provide
information as to the strength of the material encountered. The results of the test can be related empirically to the
Generally the ‘TC’ bit (a tungsten carbide tipped screw type engineering properties of the soil.
bit) is used.
Occasionally, the drop hammer is used to drive 50mm
Wash Boring - The borehole is usually advanced by a rotary diameter thin walled sample tubes (U50) in clays. In such
bit with water or fluid pumped down the hollow drill rods and circumstances, it is noted on the borehole logs.
returned up in the space between the rods and the soil or
A modification to the SPT test is where the same driving
casing, carrying the drill cuttings. Only major changes in
system is used with a solid 600 tipped steel cone of the
stratification can be determined from the cuttings, together
same diameter as the SPT hollow sampler. The solid cone
with some information from "feel" and rate of penetration.
can be continuously driven for some distance in soft clays or
More accurate information on soil strata is gained by regular
loose sands, or may be used where damage would
testing and sampling using the Standard Penetration Test
otherwise occur to the SPT. The results of this Solid SPT are
(SPT) and undisturbed thin walled tube samples (U50).
shown as "Nc" on the borehole logs, together with the
Mud Stabilized Drilling - Either Wash Boring or Continuous number of blows per 150 mm penetration.
Core Drilling can use drilling mud as a circulating fluid to
Cone Penetration Tests - Test Method - Cone Penetration
stabilize the borehole. The term "mud" encompasses a range
Tests (CPT) are carried out in accordance with AS 1289 Test
of products ranging from bentonite to polymers such as
6.5.1-1999, using an electrical friction-cone penetrometer.
Revert or Biogel. The mud tends to mask the cuttings and
reliable identification is only possible from regular intact The test essentially comprises the measurement of
sampling (e.g. from SPT and U50 samples) or from rock resistance to penetration of a cone of 35.7 mm diameter
coring, etc. pushed into the soil at a rate of 10-20 mm per second by
hydraulic force. The resistance to penetration is recorded in
Continuous Core Drilling - A continuous core sample is
terms of pressure on the end area of the cone (cone
obtained using a diamond or tungsten carbide tipped core
resistance, qc, in MPa) and friction on the side of the 135 mm
barrel. Provided full core recovery is achieved (which is not
long sleeve immediately above the top of the cone (friction
always possible in very weak rocks and granular soils), this
resistance, fs, in kPa). These forces are measured by
technique provides a very reliable method of investigation.
electrical transducers (strain gauges) within the cone device.
In rocks, NMLC coring (nominal 52 mm diameter) is usually
The ratio between friction resistance and cone resistance is
used with water flush. The length of core recovered is
also calculated as a percentage, i.e.-
compared to the length drilled and any length not recovered
𝑭𝒓𝒊𝒄𝒕𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑹𝒆𝒔𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒄𝒆, 𝒇𝒔 (𝒌𝑷𝒂) 𝒙 𝟏𝟎𝟎
is shown as CORE LOSS. The location of losses is Friction Ratio (FR) =
𝒄𝒐𝒏𝒆 𝒓𝒆𝒔𝒊𝒔𝒕𝒂𝒏𝒄𝒆, 𝒒𝒄 (𝒌𝑷𝒂)
determined on site by the supervisor. If the location of the
loss is uncertain, it is placed at the top end of the run, when The friction ratio, FR, is generally low in sands (less than 1%
the core is placed in a storage tray and recorded on the log. or 2%) and generally higher in clays (say 3% or more). The
Standard Penetration Tests - Standard Penetration Tests interpretation of sandy clays, clayey sands and material with
(SPT) are used mainly in non-cohesive soils, but can also be a high silt content is more difficult, but intermediate values
used in cohesive soils, as a means of indicating density or (between 1% and 3%) would be expected. Highly organic
strength. The test procedure is described in Australian clays and peats generally have a friction ratio in excess of
Standard 1289, "Methods of Testing Soils for Engineering 5%.
Purposes" - Test 6.3.1. Static cone data is recorded in the field on disc for later
The test is carried out in a borehole by driving a 50mm presentation using computer aided drafting.
diameter split sample tube with a tapered shoe, under the The equipment can be operated from any conventional drill
impact of a 63 kg hammer with a free fall of 760 mm. It is rig. A total applied load in the range of 4 to 10 tonnes is
normal for the tube to be driven in three successive 150 mm required for practical purposes, although lighter loads may
increments and the 'N' value is taken as the number of blows be used. The cone penetrometers are available with various
for the last 300 mm, the upper 150 mm being neglected due capacities of cone resistance ranging up to 100 MPa for
to possible disturbance from the drilling method. In dense general purpose investigations, while a range of 0 to 10 MPa
sands, very hard clays or weak rock, the full 450 mm can be used where more sensitive investigations of soft clay
penetration may not be practicable and the test is are required.
discontinued at a reduced penetration. The cone resistance value provides a continuous measure of
In the case where full penetration is obtained with successive soil strength or density, and together with the friction ratio,
blow counts for each 150 mm of, say 4, 6 and 7 blows, the provide very useful indications of the presence of narrow
record shows, bands of geotechnically significant layers such as thin, soft
clay layers or lenses of sand which might otherwise be
4, 6, 7 N = 13 missed using conventional drilling methods.
Page 43
NOTES RELATING TO THIS REPORT
September, 2019
The lithology of the encountered soils is interpreted from Although groundwater may be present in lower
static cone data and is generally presented on the static permeability soils, it may enter the hole slowly or
cone log sheets. perhaps not at all during the time the hole is open.
It is important to note that the lithology is interpreted A localized perched water table may lead to an
information and is based on research by Schmertmann erroneous indication of the true water table.
(1970), Sanglerat (1972), Robinson and Campinalli (1986), Water table levels will vary from time to time with
modified to suit local conditions as indicated by borehole seasons or recent weather changes and may not be the
information and laboratory testing. same at the time of construction.
As soils generally change gradually it is sometimes difficult to The use of water or mud as a drilling fluid will mask any
accurately describe depths of strata changes, although groundwater inflow. Water has to be bailed out of the
greater accuracy is obtained with the static cone compared bore and mud must be washed out of the hole or
with conventional drilling. In addition, friction ratios decrease "reverted" if water observations are to be made.
in accuracy with low cone resistance values, and in
More reliable measurements can be made by use of
desiccated soils. As a result, some overlap and minor
standpipes which are read after stabilizing at periods ranging
discrepancies may exist between static cone and nearby
from several days to perhaps weeks for low permeability
borehole information.
soils. Piezometers, sealed in a particular stratum, may be
Portable Dynamic Cone Penetrometers - Portable advisable in low permeability soils or where there may be
Dynamic Cone Penetrometer (DCP) tests are carried out by interference from perched water tables or surface water.
driving a rod into the ground with a falling weight hammer
and measuring the blows for successive 100mm increments
FILL
of penetration. The presence of fill materials can often be determined only
by the inclusion of foreign objects (e.g. bricks, steel, etc.) or
The DCP comprises a Cone of 20 mm diameter with 30
by distinctly unusual colour, texture or fabric. Identification of
degree taper attached to steel rods of smaller section.
the extent of fill materials will also depend on investigation
The cone end is driven with a 9 kg hammer falling 510 mm methods and frequency. Where natural soils similar to those
(AS 1289 Test 6.3.2). The test was developed initially for at the site are used for fill, it may be difficult with limited
pavement subgrade investigations, and empirical testing and sampling to reliably determine the extent of the
correlations of the test results with California Bearing Ratio fill.
have been published by various Road Authorities. The
The presence of fill materials is usually regarded with caution
Company has developed their own correlations with
as the possible variation in density, strength and material
Standard Penetration tests and Density Index tests in sands.
type is much greater than with natural soil deposits.
LOGS Consequently, there is an increased risk of adverse
engineering characteristics or behaviour. If the volume and
The borehole or test pit logs presented herein are an
quality of fill is important to a project, then frequent test pit
engineering and/or geological interpretation of the
excavations are preferable to boreholes.
subsurface conditions, and their reliability will depend to
some extent on the frequency of sampling and the method of LABORATORY TESTING
drilling or excavation. Ideally, continuous undisturbed
Laboratory testing is normally carried out in accordance with
sampling or core drilling will enable the most reliable
Australian Standard 1289 "Methods of Testing Soil for
assessment but is not always practicable or possible to
Engineering Purposes". Details of the test procedure used
justify on economic grounds. In any case, the boreholes or
are given on the individual report forms and the attached
test pits represent only a very small sample of the total
explanatory notes summarize important aspects of the
subsurface conditions.
Laboratory Test Procedures adopted.
The attached explanatory notes define the terms and
ENGINEERING REPORTS
symbols used in preparation of the logs.
Engineering reports are prepared by qualified personnel and
Interpretation of the information shown on the logs, and its
are based on the information obtained and on current
application to design and construction, should therefore take
engineering standards of interpretation and analysis. The
into account the spacing of boreholes or test pits, the method
information provided in Soil Surveys Engineering reports is
of drilling or excavation, the frequency of sampling and
opinion and interpretation and not factual. The
testing and the possibility of other than "straight line"
client/contractor increases their risk by not retaining the
variations between the boreholes or test pits. Subsurface
person who authored the geotechnical report, to carry out
conditions between boreholes or test pits may vary
site inspection and review (overseeing role) during
significantly from conditions encountered at the borehole or
construction, to confirm opinion and interpretation expressed
test pit locations.
in the report is accurate. Where the report has been
GROUNDWATER prepared for a specific design proposal the information and
interpretation may not be relevant if the design proposal is
Where groundwater levels are measured in boreholes, there
changed. If this happens, the Company will be pleased to
are several potential problems.
Page 44
NOTES RELATING TO THIS REPORT
September, 2019
review the report and the sufficiency of the investigation complex, it is prudent to have a joint design review which
work. involves a senior geotechnical engineer. We would be happy
to assist in this regard as an extension of our investigation
Every care is taken with the report as it relates to
commission. Construction drawings should be reviewed by
interpretation of subsurface conditions, discussion of
Soil Surveys Engineering, with sufficient time to allow
geotechnical aspects and recommendations or suggestions
changes if required, prior to inspections. Otherwise Soil
for design and construction. Since the test sites in any
Surveys Engineering reserves the right to refuse to carry out
exploration represent a very small proportion of the total site
inspections.
and since the exploration only identifies actual ground
conditions at the test sites, even under the best SITE INSPECTION
circumstances actual conditions may vary from those
The Company will always be pleased to provide engineering
inferred to exist. No responsibility is taken for:-
inspection services for geotechnical aspects of work to which
Unexpected variations in ground and/or groundwater this report is related.
conditions.
i. Site visits during construction to confirm reported
Changes in policy or interpretation of policy by statutory ground conditions
authorities. ii. Site visits to assist the contractor or other site
personnel in identifying various soil/rock types such
The actions of other persons.
as appropriate footing or pier founding depths, the
Any work where the company is not given the stability of a filled or excavated slope; or
opportunity to supervise the construction using the iii. Full-time engineering presence on site.
Companies designs/recommendations.
In the vast majority of cases it is advantageous to the
If differences occur, the Company will be pleased to assist principal for the geotechnical engineer who wrote the
with investigation or advice to resolve any problems investigation report to be involved in the construction stage
occurring. of the project.
SITE ANOMALIES The geotechnical engineer cannot take responsibility for
variations in encountered conditions, where he is not given
In the event that conditions encountered on site during the opportunity to review plans for the proposed
construction appear to vary from those expected from the development with sufficient time to allow review and make
information contained in the report, the Company requests changes to the proposed development if required, and where
that it immediately be notified. Most problems are more he is not given the opportunity to inspect the site and
readily resolved when conditions are exposed than at some oversee construction methods with regard to site conditions
later stage, well after the event. with sufficient time to observe all relevant site conditions and
Extreme events including but not limited to the results of operations.
climate change, e.g. flood levels above previously identified RESPONSIBLE USE OF GEOTECHNICAL
levels, beach scour or erosion beyond normal expectations
(as identified by local authorities) extreme rainfall events, INFORMATION
war, espionage, sabotage may result in different conditions Recommendations in our report are for design purposes only
between time of investigation and time of construction. and provided on the basis that inspections are carried out to
allow finalisation of opinions and recommendations
REPRODUCTION OF INFORMATION FOR
contained in our report.
CONTRACTUAL PURPOSES
The geotechnical investigation consisting of field and
Attention is drawn to the document “Guidelines for the laboratory testing has been carried out to indicate typical
Provision of Geotechnical Information in Construction conditions by indicating conditions and parameters at the
Contracts (1987)”, published by the Institution of Engineers, specific locations of boreholes/test pits. Subsurface
Australia. Where information obtained from this investigation conditions are indicated at these locations only and the
is provided for tendering purposes, it is recommended that all inference of conditions between or away from these locations
information, including the written report and discussion, be (interpolation and extrapolation) involves a certain degree of
made available. In circumstances, where the discussion or risk. Persons inferring such conditions or carrying out such
comments section is not relevant to the contractual situation, inferences should do so with a degree of caution and
it may be appropriate to prepare a specially edited conservatism which is commensurate with the consequences
document. The Company would be pleased to assist in this of the risk of error.
regard and/or to make additional report copies available for
contract purposes at a nominal charge. Estimates of volumes based on our findings require
interpolation and extrapolation between test locations and as
REVIEW OF DESIGN such may be significantly different from actual volumes.
Where major civil or structural developments are propose or
where only a limited investigation has been completed or
where the geotechnical conditions/ constraints are quite
Page 45
Project No. 1-22276 Page 37
Ref: 1-22276, 2020-02-28, BR VER 2
Wessel Petroleum Pty Ltd – Proposed Service Station Reconstruction, 52-54 Mary Street and Weyba Road, Noosaville
APPENDIX B
BOREHOLE RECORD SHEETS
SOIL SURVEYS
Page 46
Soil Surveys Engineering Pty. Limited BOREHOLE RECORD SHEET
Specialists in Applied Geotechnics
PO Box 317, Paddington, 4064
Location Number: BH 01
+61 7 3369 6000
[email protected]
Project Number: 1-22276
www.soilsurveys.com.au Project Name: Prop. Service Station Reconstruction
Location: 52-54 Mary St & Weyba Rd, Noosaville
Easting: 506801 Northing: 7079989 RL: Client: Belo Developments
Logger: RH Operator: RH Machine: EVH1750 Date: 25/02/2020 Page: 1 OF 1
Drilling Method DCP Test
Graphic (blows/100mm) Samples and
Depth Description
Casing
NMLC
Remarks
WB
RR
0 6 12 18 24 30
TC
0.11 CONCRETE
0.30 FILL Silty SAND (SM) Loose, fine to coarse grained, dark ASS
grey mottled dark brown, moist.
ASS
NATURAL Silty SAND (SM) Medium dense, fine to coarse
grained, dark brown, with organics, moist. ASS
0.70
SAND (SP) Medium dense, fine grained, dark brown, some
ASS
medium grained sand, a trace of low plasticity clay fines,
1.0 moist. D
ASS
1.20
Silty SAND (SM) Medium dense, fine to medium grained,
ASS
dark brown, wet.
ASS
ASS
2.0
ASS
ASS
ASS
ASS
3.0
ASS
SOIL SURVEYS 2.00 LIB 2017-07-13.GLB Log SOIL_SURVEY_AUGER_LOG2 1-22276_GINT.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 13/03/2020 14:39 10.0.000 Developed by Datgel
3.20
Silty SAND (SM) Dense to very dense, fine to medium
ASS
grained, dark brown, wet. (Indurated).
ASS
ASS
4.0 4.00
Sandy CLAY (CL-CI) Very stiff, low to medium plasticity, ASS
light grey, fine to medium grained sand, moist.
D
ASS
4.50
BOREHOLE BH 01 TERMINATED AT 4.50 m
5.0
6.0
7.0
Weathering Grades Samples
Comments: RS - Residual Soil
XW - Extremely weathered U50
1. Groundwater noted at 1.20m.
HW - Highly weathered
DW - Distinctly weathered
2. DCP refusal at 3.48m. MW - Moderately weathered
SW - Slightly weathered SPT
3. Hand augered to 0.11m. FR - Fresh
Rock Strength Disturbed
RS - Residual Soil
VL - Very low Sample
L - Low
M - Medium Bulk Approved:
H - High
Sample
Water First Noted Water Steady Level VH - Very high
EH - Extremely high Date:
Page 47
Soil Surveys Engineering Pty. Limited BOREHOLE RECORD SHEET
Specialists in Applied Geotechnics
PO Box 317, Paddington, 4064
Location Number: BH 02
+61 7 3369 6000
[email protected]
Project Number: 1-22276
www.soilsurveys.com.au Project Name: Prop. Service Station Reconstruction
Location: 52-54 Mary St & Weyba Rd, Noosaville
Easting: 506831 Northing: 7079989 RL: Client: Belo Developments
Logger: RH Operator: RH Machine: EVH1750 Date: 25/02/2020 Page: 1 OF 1
Drilling Method DCP Test
Graphic (blows/100mm) Samples and
Depth Description
Casing
NMLC
Remarks
WB
RR
0 6 12 18 24 30
TC
0.06 BITUMEN
0.13
FILL Sandy GRAVEL (GP) Dense, fine to medium sized,
dark brown, fine to coarse grained sand, moist. D
0.50 FILL Silty SAND (SM) Medium dense, fine to coarse
grained, mottled dark brown red brown light brown, trace of
fine to medium sized gravel, moist. (Hydrocarbons present).
D
NATURAL SAND (SP) Medium dense, fine to medium
1.0 grained, light brown, moist.
1.20
SAND (SP) Medium dense, fine to medium grained, mottled
light grey light brown, wet.
1.70
Silty SAND (SM) Medium dense, fine to medium grained,
dark grey, wet.
2.0
2.40
Silty SAND (SM) Dense, fine to medium grained, dark
brown, wet. (Indurated).
3.0 3.00
SOIL SURVEYS 2.00 LIB 2017-07-13.GLB Log SOIL_SURVEY_AUGER_LOG2 1-22276_GINT.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 13/03/2020 14:39 10.0.000 Developed by Datgel
BOREHOLE BH 02 TERMINATED AT 3.00 m
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Weathering Grades Samples
Comments: RS - Residual Soil
XW - Extremely weathered U50
1. Groundwater noted at 1.20m.
HW - Highly weathered
DW - Distinctly weathered
MW - Moderately weathered
SW - Slightly weathered SPT
FR - Fresh
Rock Strength Disturbed
RS - Residual Soil
VL - Very low Sample
L - Low
M - Medium Bulk Approved:
H - High
Sample
Water First Noted Water Steady Level VH - Very high
EH - Extremely high Date:
Page 48
Soil Surveys Engineering Pty. Limited BOREHOLE RECORD SHEET
Specialists in Applied Geotechnics
PO Box 317, Paddington, 4064
Location Number: BH 03
+61 7 3369 6000
[email protected]
Project Number: 1-22276
www.soilsurveys.com.au Project Name: Prop. Service Station Reconstruction
Location: 52-54 Mary St & Weyba Rd, Noosaville
Easting: 506847 Northing: 7079981 RL: Client: Belo Developments
Logger: RH Operator: RH Machine: EVH1750 Date: 25/02/2020 Page: 1 OF 1
Drilling Method DCP Test
Graphic (blows/100mm) Samples and
Depth Description
Casing
NMLC
Remarks
WB
RR
0 6 12 18 24 30
TC
0.07 BITUMEN
0.25 FILL Sandy GRAVEL (GP) Dense, fine to medium sized,
dark grey mottled dark brown, fine to coarse grained sand,
moist. D
0.60 FILL Sandy CLAY (CI-CH) Very stiff, medium to high
plasticity, dark brown, fine to coarse grained sand, moist.
(Hydrocarbons present).
1.0 NATURAL Silty SAND (SM) Medium dense, fine to medium
grained, dark grey, moist. (Hydrocarbons present).
1.20
SAND (SP) Medium dense, fine to medium grained, light
grey, wet. (Hydrocarbons present).
1.70
Silty SAND (SM) Medium dense, fine to medium grained,
dark grey, wet.
2.0
D
3.0
3.10
SOIL SURVEYS 2.00 LIB 2017-07-13.GLB Log SOIL_SURVEY_AUGER_LOG2 1-22276_GINT.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 13/03/2020 14:39 10.0.000 Developed by Datgel
Silty SAND (SM) Very dense to dense, fine to medium
grained, dark brown, wet. (Indurated).
4.0 4.00
BOREHOLE BH 03 TERMINATED AT 4.00 m
5.0
6.0
7.0
Weathering Grades Samples
Comments: RS - Residual Soil
XW - Extremely weathered U50
1. Groundwater noted at 1.20m.
HW - Highly weathered
DW - Distinctly weathered
2. DCP refusal at 3.00m. MW - Moderately weathered
SW - Slightly weathered
FR - Fresh
SPT
Rock Strength Disturbed
RS - Residual Soil
VL - Very low Sample
L - Low
M - Medium Bulk Approved:
H - High
Sample
Water First Noted Water Steady Level VH - Very high
EH - Extremely high Date:
Page 49
Soil Surveys Engineering Pty. Limited BOREHOLE RECORD SHEET
Specialists in Applied Geotechnics
PO Box 317, Paddington, 4064
Location Number: BH 04
+61 7 3369 6000
[email protected]
Project Number: 1-22276
www.soilsurveys.com.au Project Name: Prop. Service Station Reconstruction
Location: 52-54 Mary St & Weyba Rd, Noosaville
Easting: 506798 Northing: 7079962 RL: Client: Belo Developments
Logger: RH Operator: RH Machine: EVH1750 Date: 25/02/2020 Page: 1 OF 1
Drilling Method DCP Test
Graphic (blows/100mm) Samples and
Depth Description
Casing
NMLC
Remarks
WB
RR
0 6 12 18 24 30
TC
0.15 FILL Silty SAND (SM) Very loose, fine to coarse grained,
dark brown, with organics, moist.
FILL Gravelly SAND (SP) Medium dense to dense, fine to D B
0.50 coarse grained, red brown mottled dark brown, fine to
coarse sized gravel, trace of low to medium plasticity clay
fines, moist.
0.80 NATURAL Silty SAND (SM) Loose to medium dense, fine to
medium grained, dark brown, moist.
1.0 D
SAND (SP) Medium dense, fine grained, light brown, some
1.20 medium grained sand, a trace of fines, moist.
SAND (SP) Medium dense, fine grained, light brown, some
medium grained sand, a trace of fines, wet.
2.0
2.10
Silty SAND (SM) Medium dense, fine to medium grained,
dark grey, wet.
2.40
Silty SAND (SM) Dense, fine to coarse grained, dark brown,
wet.
3.0 3.00
SOIL SURVEYS 2.00 LIB 2017-07-13.GLB Log SOIL_SURVEY_AUGER_LOG2 1-22276_GINT.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 13/03/2020 14:39 10.0.000 Developed by Datgel
BOREHOLE BH 04 TERMINATED AT 3.00 m
4.0
5.0
6.0
7.0
Weathering Grades Samples
Comments: RS - Residual Soil
XW - Extremely weathered U50
1. Groundwater noted at 1.20m.
HW - Highly weathered
DW - Distinctly weathered
MW - Moderately weathered
SW - Slightly weathered SPT
FR - Fresh
Rock Strength Disturbed
RS - Residual Soil
VL - Very low Sample
L - Low
M - Medium Bulk Approved:
H - High
Sample
Water First Noted Water Steady Level VH - Very high
EH - Extremely high Date:
Page 50
Soil Surveys Engineering Pty. Limited BOREHOLE RECORD SHEET
Specialists in Applied Geotechnics
PO Box 317, Paddington, 4064
Location Number: BH 05
+61 7 3369 6000
[email protected]
Project Number: 1-22276
www.soilsurveys.com.au Project Name: Prop. Service Station Reconstruction
Location: 52-54 Mary St & Weyba Rd, Noosaville
Easting: 506821 Northing: 7079958 RL: Client: Belo Developments
Logger: RH Operator: RH Machine: EVH1750 Date: 25/02/2020 Page: 1 OF 1
Drilling Method DCP Test
Graphic (blows/100mm) Samples and
Depth Description
Casing
NMLC
Remarks
WB
RR
0 6 12 18 24 30
TC
0.04 BITUMEN
0.13
0.22 FILL Sandy GRAVEL (GP) Dense, fine to medium sized,
dark brown, fine to coarse grained sand, moist.
D
BITUMEN
0.60
FILL Silty SAND (SM) Medium dense, fine to medium
0.80
grained, dark grey, moist. (Some hydrocarbons present).
NATURAL Silty SAND (SM) Medium dense, fine to medium
1.0 grained, dark brown, moist. (Hydrocarbons present). D
SAND (SP) Medium dense, fine to medium grained, light
1.20
grey, moist.
SAND (SP) Medium dense, fine to medium grained, light
grey, wet.
1.70
Silty SAND (SM) Medium dense, fine to medium grained,
dark grey, wet.
2.0
2.50
Silty SAND (SM) Dense to very dense, fine to medium
grained, dark brown, wet. (Indurated).
D
3.0
SOIL SURVEYS 2.00 LIB 2017-07-13.GLB Log SOIL_SURVEY_AUGER_LOG2 1-22276_GINT.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 13/03/2020 14:39 10.0.000 Developed by Datgel
4.0
4.10
Silty CLAY (CH) Very stiff, high plasticity, mottled light grey
light brown, trace of fine to coarse grained sand, moist. D
4.50
BOREHOLE BH 05 TERMINATED AT 4.50 m
5.0
6.0
7.0
Weathering Grades Samples
Comments: RS - Residual Soil
XW - Extremely weathered U50
1. Groundwater noted at 1.20m.
HW - Highly weathered
DW - Distinctly weathered
2. DCP refusal at 3.17m. MW - Moderately weathered
SW - Slightly weathered
FR - Fresh
SPT
Rock Strength Disturbed
RS - Residual Soil
VL - Very low Sample
L - Low
M - Medium Bulk Approved:
H - High
Sample
Water First Noted Water Steady Level VH - Very high
EH - Extremely high Date:
Page 51
Soil Surveys Engineering Pty. Limited BOREHOLE RECORD SHEET
Specialists in Applied Geotechnics
PO Box 317, Paddington, 4064
Location Number: BH 06
+61 7 3369 6000
[email protected]
Project Number: 1-22276
www.soilsurveys.com.au Project Name: Prop. Service Station Reconstruction
Location: 52-54 Mary St & Weyba Rd, Noosaville
Easting: 506848 Northing: 7079956 RL: Client: Belo Developments
Logger: RH Operator: RH Machine: EVH1750 Date: 25/02/2020 Page: 1 OF 1
Drilling Method DCP Test
Graphic (blows/100mm) Samples and
Depth Description
Casing
NMLC
Remarks
WB
RR
0 6 12 18 24 30
TC
FILL Silty SAND (SM) Very loose, fine to coarse grained,
ASS
dark brown, trace of fine to medium sized gravel and
0.30 organics, moist.
0.40
FILL CONCRETE Pieces
ASS
0.60 NATURAL Silty SAND (SM) Very loose to loose, fine to
coarse grained, light grey, moist. ASS
Silty SAND (SM) Very loose to loose, fine to coarse grained,
ASS
1.0 dark brown, with low to medium plasticity clay fines, moist.
(Hydrocarbons present).
ASS
1.20
SAND (SP) Medium dense, fine to medium grained, light
D ASS
brown, wet. (Hydrocarbons present).
ASS
ASS
2.0
ASS
ASS
ASS
2.70
Silty SAND (SM) Medium dense to dense, fine to medium
ASS
grained, dark brown, wet. (Hydrocarbons present)
3.0 (Indurated).
SOIL SURVEYS 2.00 LIB 2017-07-13.GLB Log SOIL_SURVEY_AUGER_LOG2 1-22276_GINT.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 13/03/2020 14:39 10.0.000 Developed by Datgel
ASS
ASS
ASS
ASS
4.0
ASS
D
ASS
ASS
4.70
Silty SAND (SM) Medium dense, fine to medium grained,
ASS
light brown, wet.
5.0
ASS
ASS
ASS
ASS
6.0 6.00
BOREHOLE BH 06 TERMINATED AT 6.00 m
7.0
Weathering Grades Samples
Comments: RS - Residual Soil
XW - Extremely weathered U50
1. Groundwater noted at 1.20m.
HW - Highly weathered
DW - Distinctly weathered
MW - Moderately weathered
SW - Slightly weathered SPT
FR - Fresh
Rock Strength Disturbed
RS - Residual Soil
VL - Very low Sample
L - Low
M - Medium Bulk Approved:
H - High
Sample
Water First Noted Water Steady Level VH - Very high
EH - Extremely high Date:
Page 52
Soil Surveys Engineering Pty. Limited BOREHOLE RECORD SHEET
Specialists in Applied Geotechnics
PO Box 317, Paddington, 4064
Location Number: BH 07
+61 7 3369 6000
[email protected]
Project Number: 1-22276
www.soilsurveys.com.au Project Name: Prop. Service Station Reconstruction
Location: 52-54 Mary St & Weyba Rd, Noosaville
Easting: 506821 Northing: 7079960 RL: Client: Belo Developments
Logger: RH Operator: RH Machine: EVH1750 Date: 25/02/2020 Page: 1 OF 1
Drilling Method DCP Test
Graphic (blows/100mm) Samples and
Depth Description
Casing
NMLC
Remarks
WB
RR
0 6 12 18 24 30
TC
0.16 CONCRETE
FILL Silty SAND (SM) Loose, fine to coarse grained, dark
0.40 brown, trace of fine sized gravel, moist. (Hydrocarbons
present).
NATURAL Silty SAND (SM) Medium dense, fine to medium
grained, dark brown, moist. (Hydrocarbons present).
1.0
1.20
SAND (SP) Medium dense, fine to medium grained, light
grey, wet. (Hydrocarbons present).
1.70
Silty SAND (SM) Medium dense, fine to medium grained,
dark grey, wet. (Hydrocarbons present).
2.0
2.40
Silty SAND (SM) Dense, fine to medium grained, dark
brown, wet. (Indurated sand).
3.0
SOIL SURVEYS 2.00 LIB 2017-07-13.GLB Log SOIL_SURVEY_AUGER_LOG2 1-22276_GINT.GPJ <<DrawingFile>> 13/03/2020 14:39 10.0.000 Developed by Datgel
3.50
Silty SAND (SM) Medium dense to dense, fine to medium
grained, dark brown, wet.
4.0
4.70
Silty SAND (SM) Medium dense, fine to medium grained,
light brown, trace of Sandy Clay (CL-CI) bands, wet.
5.0 (Hydrocarbons present).
5.50
Silty SAND (SM) Dense, fine to medium grained, dark
brown, wet.
6.0 6.00
BOREHOLE BH 07 TERMINATED AT 6.00 m
7.0
Weathering Grades Samples
Comments: RS - Residual Soil
XW - Extremely weathered U50
1. Groundwater noted at 1.20m.
HW - Highly weathered
DW - Distinctly weathered
MW - Moderately weathered
SW - Slightly weathered SPT
FR - Fresh
Rock Strength Disturbed
RS - Residual Soil
VL - Very low Sample
L - Low
M - Medium Bulk Approved:
H - High
Sample
Water First Noted Water Steady Level VH - Very high
EH - Extremely high Date:
The text continues on page 53.